transforming schools through collaborative leadership (student outcomes and the reform of education

Transforming Schools ThroughCollaborative Leadership

Student Outcomes and the Reform of Education General Editor: Brian J.Caldwell, Professor of Education, Head, Department ofEducation Policy and Management, University of Melbourne, Australia

Student Outcomes and the Reform of Education is concerned with the reformof public education and its impact on outcomes for students. The reform agendahas gripped the attention of policy-makers, practitioners, researchers andscholars for much of the 1990s, with every indication of more to come with theapproach of the new millennium. This series reports research and describesstrategies that deal with the outcomes of reform. Without sacrificing a criticalperspective the intention is to provide a guide to good practice and strongscholarship within the new arrangements that are likely to provide theframework for public education in the foreseeable future.

1 School Effectiveness and School-based Management:A mechanism for developmentYin Cheong Cheng

2 Transforming Schools Through Collaborative LeadershipHelen Telford

Transforming SchoolsThrough Collaborative

Leadership

Helen Telford

The Falmer Press(A member of the Taylor & Francis Group)

London • Washington, D.C.

UK Falmer Press, 1 Gunpowder Square, London EC4A 3DEUSA Falmer Press, Taylor & Francis Inc., 1900 Frost Road, Suite 101, Bristol,

PA 19007

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2003.

© H.Telford, 1996

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by anymeans, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,without permission in writing from the Publisher.

First published in 1996

A catalogue record for this book is available from the BritishLibrary

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data areavailable on request ISBN 0-203-45417-0 Master e-book ISBN ISBN 0-203-76241-X (Adobe eReader Format)ISBN 0 7507 0566 3 casedISBN 0 7507 0567 1 paper

Every effort has been made to contact copyright holders for theirpermission to reprint material in this book. The publishers wouldbe grateful to hear from any copyright holder who is not hereacknowledged and will undertake to rectify any errors or omissionsin future editions of this book.

v

Contents

List of Figures and Tables vii

Abstract ix

Preface 1

Chapter 1 Leadership: Related Theory and Research 7

Chapter 2 Collaborative Leadership 19

Chapter 3 Research Methodology 28

Chapter 4 The Structural Frame 41

Chapter 5 The Human Resource Frame 58

Chapter 6 The Political Frame 71

Chapter 7 The Symbolic Frame 85

Chapter 8 Further Connections 99

Chapter 9 Issues and Reflections 121

References 137

Appendixes 143

Index 149

vii

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Hypothesized causal map of leadership and schooloutcomes at the Waratah Primary School 5

Figure 2: Causal network for development of the humanrights policy for Wattle Secondary College 6

Figure 3: Elements of collaborative leadership 26

Figure 4: Components of data analysis: Interactive model 31

Table 1: Number of People Interviewed 34

viii

Dedication This book is dedicated to all those who know what it is to truly collaborate, and indoing so bring shared wisdom, energy and a great sense of perspective to their dailywork in places of learning.

ix

Abstract

Since the early 1980s educators in Australia, and around the world, have beenfaced with continual, radical change in both their schools and the systems thatsupport them. These changes have dominated the workplace. Moreover, theeconomic and political nature of many of these changes seems to be increasinglytaking the reform agenda out of the hands of educators, leaving them with anabiding sense of unease and disorientation. As well, a multiplicity of complexeducational demands are being placed at the feet of teachers and administrators.Some schools, such as those in the inner city areas of large cosmopolitan cities areexperiencing accelerated changes in the socio-cultural make-up of their studentpopulations, an increasing array of educational expectations and, at the sametime, school closures, amalgamations and restructuring at the school and systemlevels. As these factors converge and impact on those who work, or assist thework, in schools, a shifting context becomes the norm, displacing the once stableand secure basis of educational programs, structures and staffing. Clearly, then,what leaders do to accomplish success in their schools in such unsettling timesis of paramount importance. Of particular interest is the contribution ofleadership to school improvement in urban schools where perhaps some of themost difficult and intractable conditions prevail. Leaders in these schools arecompelled to confront the enigmatic nature of their work head-on if they are toachieve desired outcomes for students, staff and the school as a whole. As aresult, successful leaders need to apply peculiar insights and capacities to theirworkplace, drawing on a sophisticated modus operandi which enables them todeal effectively with the problematic school context which faces them on a day-to-day basis. It is with this modus operandi that this book is concerned, as it is onewhich can be practised by not only those who aspire to gain mastery over thecrisis conditions that prevail in schools at the present time, but those who alsostrive to become enlightened leaders of successful schools.

1

Preface

Context and Intent

In the educational world at the present time there is relentless change at both theschool and system level. Schools are in a constant state of reorganization with thedismantling of centralized authorities, including support services and standardoperational procedures and processes. Roles and responsibilities of school principalsare being revised. Many schools are being closed down as part of governmentrationalization policy. Others are being amalgamated. Many members of staff arebeing required to transfer to different schools, whilst others are taking financialpackages and early retirement. Moreover, urban schools are confronted with furtherresponsibilities. Students in these schools often come from low socio-economic,non-English speaking backgrounds and have special social welfare and educationalneeds. Staffing arrangements must serve the specific needs of transient migrantgroups, and innovative curriculum provision is a necessity to target therequirements of an urban clientele. Skilful and imaginative leadership, then, isimperative to cope with such a context to bring about success.

This book examines leadership and its links to success in schools, reflecting theview that the role of leaders and the process of leadership are significant contributingfactors in the achievement of successful school improvement. Its intent is to establishwhat it is that leaders do as part of their daily work in these schools to achievesuccess and school improvement, despite the prevailing difficulties. The focus ison the notion of collaborative leadership, developed and defined in this book as onewhich is transformational and encompasses distinctive elements of collaboration.Whilst the study was centred on urban schools in Melbourne, Australia, the insightsgained are universal in their application to leadership in schools of all sorts—whether they be large or small, city or rural, elementary or secondary, new or old.For, those of us who work in schools can immediately sense when a school isworking well. It sort of buzzes along, at a rattling pace, breathing a life’s energy ofits own which plays out the hopes, the dreams and the expectations of its inhabitants.Such a school is a place of action, of drama, of politics and of morality. I have beenlucky enough to be an inhabitant of just such a workplace and, since that time, ithas been an endless source of fascination and intrigue to me to try and determinejust how it all comes to be. The purpose of this book is to unravel and share mydiscoveries, and to attempt to bring a clarity to what has to me always been amurky and confusing scene—effective leadership of a school.

Transforming Schools Through Collaborative Leadership

2

Enlightenment has come from an analysis of the leadership in five inner cityschools, both primary and secondary in Melbourne, where for all intents andpurposes the odds railed against any likelihood of school success. Many of thestudents in the schools came from families who were new arrivals to Australia,and from non-English speaking backgrounds. In one of the schools, for example,only ten children in the whole school population had English as their first language.This meant teaching and learning, as well as communication with parents,presented serious difficulties. In addition, many came from low socio-economiccircumstances where a social welfare context overlaid the educational one. Aswell, the predominance of one cultural group was regularly replaced by anotherwithin the space of the school year making strategic planning, as far as supportstaffing was concerned, to a large extent immaterial. Add to this a context ofrestructuring from a centralized educational authority to self-managing schools,with all of its inherent accompanying complexities, and it was indeed surprisingto find that these schools were able to experience such celebrated success. Schoolsin large cosmopolitan cities around the western world face similar dilemmas, andschools anywhere are confronted by what could be described as crisis conditionsof information explosion and constant change. To be successful in such a context,schools must be providers of an innovative curriculum which is highly adaptableto changing needs, and, therefore, leaders must take up the challenge of developinga school climate which is conducive to learning, focuses on improvement ratherthan maintenance, encourages experimentation and innovation, and facilitatescontinuous teacher learning. This means that leaders in schools in the 1990smust embrace new ways of thinking and working based around collaborativepatterns of personal leadership which will reculture their school into one of success.

In April 1992, at the time this research was completed, the Victoriangovernment school system had been undergoing evolutionary change indevolution of authority from the centralized bureaucracy to the school level.School councils were engaging in participative, collaborative decision-makingprocesses involving the whole school community, namely, teachers, parents andstudents (at secondary level) and sharing responsibility for determining theirown curricula within the principles and framework of government policy.Regional boards of education had been established as a mechanism for collectivedecision-making between the school, the region and the central Ministry ofEducation. Education regions were viewed as collections of schools andschooling services in specific geographical areas. The schools in this study werelocated in one such region of the Victoria’s Ministry of Education, eachfunctioning through its own school council. It is important to note that sincethat time massive school reform has taken place in terms of the devolution ofauthority to Victorian government schools, now known as Schools of the Future,however these reforms are not the subject of this book.

To fully understand the context in which these school leaders were operating,a little background is necessary. The school communities where the research wasundertaken were located in Melbourne which is the capital city of the state ofVictoria, situated on the south-eastern coast of the continent. It is a large

Preface

3

cosmopolitan city with a population of over three million people of diverseethnic mix, backgrounds ranging from Asian, Middle-Eastern to European, aswell as Australian. Inner Melbourne suburbs are traditional stopping off pointsfor new arrivals to the city. They are densely populated, and provide a mix ofresidential, commercial, entertainment and industrial districts. Melbournecelebrates its multicultural character with festivals and entertainment, markets,restaurants and foods of every nationality. The inner areas of Melbourne arecolourful places to live, and being in close proximity to the central businessdistrict, also attract numbers of students, professionals and academics asresidents. The schools in inner city Melbourne reflect this population in itsschools and it is from this context that the research for this book is taken.

School Success

A dizzying array of interpretations of ‘success’ has been put forward ineducational circles, peppered with terms such as ‘efficiency’, ‘effectiveness’,‘excellence’, ‘quality’, ‘standards’, ‘performance’ and so on. Success has mostoften been equated with academic test scores, especially those of the ‘basic’ skillsof numeracy and literacy. Some will see success measured by the numbers ofstudents who compete successfully in the workplace. Others will perceive it as ameasure of the happiness and well-being of the person as a whole. Those inschools know that there is much in education that cannot be measured. Some ofthe most admirable learning is intangible and unquantifiable. However,whatever the definition one applies to success, it must include a set goal orobjective, with the measure of success being gauged against its achievement.

In the context of this book, success is associated with effective schoolimprovement. Wideen, in Fullan and Hargreaves (1992:123), indicates thatunderstandings of what constitutes school success in school improvement arestill in their infancy. Generally, however, success in school improvement isrelated to the organizational good health of a school with indicators of successconceived of as performance indicators. These are linked to school outcomes,and ‘may be utilized in making judgments about aspects of a program, a programas a whole or the school as a whole, including the extent to which matters offundamental importance in the school charter have been addressed, policies havebeen implemented or the development plan has progressed’ (Caldwell andSpinks, 1992:148). For the purposes of this book, the following indicators ofsuccess in schools were employed:

• outstanding improvements in outcomes in recent years, in the programof the school as a whole or in one or more aspects of the program;

• success in the introduction of new approaches to learning and teaching,or the organization and support of learning and teaching;

• success in addressing a particular problem or set of problems;• sustained achievement over many years.


4

How was it then that these five schools set about achieving success? What was itthat they actually did in their schools to make it happen? What son of leadershipenabled success to be achieved despite the odds? In order to gain insight to suchquestions, a pressing need emerged to learn about leadership itself—what wasreally meant by that much-used term?

Two sources gave insights. The prime source was understandings gained froma comprehensive review of the current related theory and research. The secondsource was an exploratory study undertaken in two inner city Melbourneschools. The latter affirmed the need for the ensuing research and gave impetusto further investigation. A detailed account of the related theory and researchwill be presented in the next chapter. What follows is a brief overview of theexploratory study and its implications for this investigation.

The Exploratory Investigation

An exploratory study of two urban schools was undertaken prior to this study.Valuable information about the nature of leadership in urban schools wasacquired and the findings indicated that a more comprehensive inquiry was welljustified.

Findings at the two schools in the exploratory investigation indicated strongconnections between collaborative cultures and success. The Waratah PrimarySchool exhibited achievement in the areas of outstanding outcomes in recentyears in the program of the school as a whole and success in the introduction ofnew approaches to teaching and learning. A significant and major achievementat Wattle Secondary College was success in addressing a particular problem,namely, ‘racist behaviour, which continually plagued the efficient operation ofthe school community’ (Debney Park High School, 1986:7) and centred aroundthe development of a Human Rights Policy. As a result school programs wereable to operate successfully.

The culture of each school was characterized by several central elements. AtWaratah Primary School these were commitment (a people focus), vision,celebration, optimism, excellence, energy, networks, empowerment, flexibilityand social justice values. At Wattle Secondary College collaboration, caring andconcern, consultation, clear communication and guidelines, networking,listening, support, showing respect for all and valuing people, initiative andtaking responsibility, a pragmatic realism, and flexibility and adaptability formedthe essential characteristics. It would seem that, whilst there are underpinningsimilarities in the cultures of each of these schools, there are differencesassociated with the context in which the schools were operating at the particulartime. For instance, Waratah Primary School was dealing with issues dominatedby a transient, low socio-economic, non-English speaking background studentpopulation. The fundamental concerns at Wattle Secondary College related tothe management of racial tensions between ethnic groups, and the recognitionthat these were impeding the processes of learning.

Preface

5

The elements of school culture derived from the findings of the exploratory studywere depicted in hypothesized causal maps and are represented in Figures 1 and 2.

Of specific interest to this book are the areas of:

– consultation– a people focus– empowerment– collaboration

The depth and breadth of successful achievement at the Waratah Primary Schooland Wattle Secondary College are reflected in the outstanding outcomes in theprograms of the schools as a whole. There has been success in the introductionof new approaches to learning and teaching; success in the organization andsupport of the technical culture; and success in dealing constructively with theparticular challenges facing urban schools. The nature of these findings had acritical influence in stimulating the thinking behind this book.

Figure 1: Hypothesized causal map of leadership and school outcomes at theWaratah Primary School


6

The next chapter is devoted entirely to the related theory and research whichsurrounds the concept of leadership. Particular attention is given to leadershiptheory as it relates to schools in the 1990s and to the ideas of Bolman and Deal(1991) proffered in their publication Reframing Organisations: Artistry, Choiceand Leadership who propose the notion of viewing leadership through fourframes—structural, human resource, political and symbolic.

Figure 2: Causal network for development of the human rights policy for WattleSecondary College

7

Chapter 1

Leadership: Related Theoryand Research

Leadership Theory

Leadership is defined in many ways. Stogdill (1974:259) wrote that ‘there arealmost as many definitions as there are persons who have attempted to define theconcept.’ Bennis and Nanus (1985) reported finding over 350 definitions in theliterature and since then many more have been added. Burns (1978:18) tells usthat leadership over human beings is exercised when persons with certainpurposes mobilize, in competition or conflict with others, institutional,political, psychological and other resources so as to arouse, engage and satisfy themotives of the followers.’ Sergiovanni (1987:2) believes that leadership is theprocess of persuasion by which a leader or leadership group (such as the state)induces followers to act in a manner that enhances the leader’s purposes orshared purposes.’ Greenfield (1986:142) describes leadership as ‘a wilful actwhere one person attempts to construct the social world for others.’ Beare,Caldwell and Millikan (1989:123) point out that ‘leadership is concerned withgaining commitment to a set of values, statements of “what ought to be”, whichthen become the heart of the culture of the school.’ So before proceeding it isnecessary to clarify exactly what is meant by the term leadership in the context ofthis book.

Since time began humans have sought out individuals whom it was felt wouldprovide a superior wisdom which might bring sense and direction to theirimperfect world. It was believed, or hoped, that some kind of ascending insightor intelligence could capture the elusive truth about the nature of human-kind.These individuals, possessing, it was thought, exclusive character traits, wouldguide us to realms of understanding not known before. Such individuals wereknown as leaders and they were endowed with innate character traits whichespecially fitted them for their leadership roles, such as intelligence, initiative,self-assurance, enthusiasm, sociability, integrity and courage (Handy,1985:94ff ). Early research produced no conclusive evidence that these personalcharacteristics correlated with effective leadership, namely, leadership whichgenerated desired outcomes. However, Stogdill (1974) has indicated that morerecent studies have yielded such testimony: traits like energy, persistence,capacity to handle stress, sense of responsibility, risk-taking, and concern for taskcompletion are seen to be attributes which characterize successful leaders. But


8

trait theories ‘rest on the assumption that the individual is more important thanthe situation’ (Handy, 1985:93) in determining successful leadership, denyingthe complexities of the leadership milieu and not really getting to the bottom ofwhat makes the difference between effective and ineffective leadership in avariety of situations.

Over the past half century a body of knowledge about leadership in educationhas developed. It began with Taylor’s (1911) classical view that saw leadershippredominantly as a matter of hierarchical power over subordinates and a primaryconcern with the task at hand (Mintzberg, 1973). Human relations proponents(Follett, 1941; McGregor, 1960) focused on people in organizations seeingleadership as interaction between leaders and others in the group. Behaviourists(Barnard, 1938) advocated leadership as both people-and task-oriented.Contingency views of leadership (Fiedler, 1967; Hersey and Blanchard, 1982)proposed that no one leadership approach could be claimed as the most effective;successful leadership was contextual. Political dimensions of power, conflict andmorality have been addressed (Ball, 1987; Hoyle, 1986). Perspectives of genderand change theory also make their contribution. Each has been a response to theshortfalls of its predecessor in an attempt to discover the full actualityencompassed by that elusive concept leadership.

In 1978 James McGregor Burns made an enlightening distinction betweentransactional and transforming leadership, providing a major shift in the thinkingbehind leadership theory, particularly with regard to leadership and itsconnection with moral dimensions. Burns identifies two ways in whichleadership is commonly exercised. Transactional leadership is primarilyconcerned with individuals within an organization negotiating their individual,as opposed to group, interests with the leader where both leader and staff aremutually satisfied with the arrangement. Transforming leadership, on the otherhand, ‘involves an exchange among people seeking common aims, uniting themto go beyond their separate interests in the pursuit of higher goals’ (Sergiovanniand Starratt, 1988:198) in the way that Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther Kingand Jesus Christ inspired others to a shared commitment of their vision (Burns,1978). Sergiovanni (1987:6) contends that:

In transformational leadership, by contrast [to transactional leadership],regardless of special interest and goals, administrators and teachers areunited in pursuit of higher level goals that are common to both. Both,for example, want to become the best. Both want to shape the school ina new direction.

Unlike early notions of individual leadership, transforming leadership(referred to as the more widespread concept of transformational leadership)acknowledges that in today’s challenging and demanding educational climateof constant and turbulent change, no single person alone is likely to have thecombined capacities necessary to engage in effective leadership. And it can belegitimately argued, that in empowering a range of people within the school

Related Theory and Research

9

community—teachers, students, parents and others as appropriate—a combinedrichness of educational thought and activity, superior to that of any single leader,can be achieved. That is, leadership at its best is a shared venture engaged in bymany. Further, as Louis and Miles (1991) point out, if implementation of visionis to be effective, then power sharing is critical. Louis and Miles’ (1991) researchindicates that leaders in successful schools are able to support the initiative-taking of others, be it teachers, parents or students, without fear of losingcontrol; facilitate the formation of teams and working parties; resource theseinitiatives; at the same time keeping in close touch with the groups andmonitoring their progress. Sergiovanni (1987:122) refers to ‘the extent to whichleadership roles are shared and the extent to which leadership is broadlyexercised’ as ‘leadership density’. With a spread of leadership in the school, theprincipal is freed to take a more constructive role, as Fullan and Hargreaves(1991b:15) note, ‘from that of a meeting-bound bureaucrat, to an instructionalleader who can work closely with his or her staff in developing andimplementing common educational goals.’

Sergiovanni (1984:6) advanced insight into the leadership theory debatewhen he classified leadership perspectives into five ‘leadership forces’,incorporating the two-dimensional task and relationship perspectives which haddominated the previous decades of research, renaming them technical and humanforces, and adding three further dimensions—educational, symbolic and cultural.The technical, human and educational leadership forces combine to accomplisheffectiveness in schools, but if excellence is to be achieved then, Sergiovanniargues, it is necessary to focus on symbolic and cultural forces. Technical andhuman elements address the management competencies of the organization; theeducational dimension serves to ensure the effectiveness of the teaching andlearning in the school; and symbolic and cultural perspectives take account ofthe need to go beyond competent management to higher values—purposeswhich bring about a desired better state of affairs through vision and the buildingof a strong school culture. Sergiovanni’s five forces of leadership are as follows:

• technical—accomplishing the tasks of the organization [planning,organizing, coordinating, commanding and controlling];

• human—attending to human factors [consideration of relationshipsamong people in the organization, morale, empowerment];

• educational—instructional leadership [addressing educationalproblems, developing and evaluating curriculum, professionaldevelopment];

• symbolic—capacity of leaders to create, communicate and gaincommitment to a vision [to impart purpose, values and significance,utilize symbols]; and

• cultural—capacity to build a strong school culture [to generate sharedvalues and beliefs and a strong commitment to the organization].

Bennis and Nanus (1985) explored the notion of ‘vision’ and applied it to the


10

leadership discussion. Their book identified ninety exceptional leaders andshowed that successful leaders are able to focus attention on vision,communicate the vision through symbols and rhetoric, and due to their strengthof personal commitment, see the vision through into practice. This has directrelevance to Sergiovanni’s symbolic force of leadership.

The development of the concepts of transformational leadership, the fiveforces of leadership, vision, and empowerment, have all been influential in thework of current leadership theorists. Drawing on all these perspectives, Starratt(1988:213) has developed an insightful model of leadership known as the‘communal institutionalizing of vision’, where, Starratt contends, if schools areto be successful, leadership must be transforming, translating vision into thedaily operation of educational activities through shared processes.

School Leadership in the 1990s

Leadership—A Definition

Yukl (1989:252) proposes a definition of leadership which attempts to capturethe elusive qualities of the concept: ‘Leadership is defined broadly [as] influencingtask objectives and strategies, influencing commitment and compliance in taskbehaviour to achieve these objectives, influencing group maintenance andidentification, and influencing the culture of an organization.’ Yukl’s definition isone which embraces a composite of the notions of leadership density, multi-dimensional leadership forces, the institutionalization of vision; and one whichfavours transformational rather than transactional leadership. Embracing thenotion of leadership density has significant implications for the definition of aleader’. It signals the extent to which leadership can pervade an organization. Ittakes account of both formal and informal leadership influences, and it allows fora rich network of influences to be sanctioned in addition to the formalhierarchical ones. Given this, who then are the leaders in a school? Who holds theinfluence and authority on behalf of the school community? The answer lies inthe individual people in the school itself and their potential for participating inconstructive leadership activity. In other words there is no limit to who can be aleader; the only limitation is the limitations of the people themselves. I would liketo propose as broad a base as possible for leadership in the school, and so for thepurposes of this investigation a leader can be a principal, a teacher, a parent, astudent, a supporting staff member, such as a multicultural aide, as long as theyhave the capacity, referred to by Yukl, to ‘influenc[e] task objectives and strategies,influenc[e] commitment and compliance in task behaviour to achieve theseobjectives, influenc[e] group maintenance and identification, and influenc[e] theculture of an organization.’ Any member of the school community whodemonstrates such capabilities is defined in this book as a leader. To this extent,leadership is not necessarily hierarchical, but inclusive of all those who complywith Yukl’s criteria and who wish to contribute.


11

Closely linked to the notion of leadership density is the concept oftransformational leadership. Transformational leadership initiates atransformation in the school and has particular connotations for schoolimprovement and success. A feature of this transformation is that it isaccomplished by a density of leadership across the school, through empoweredleaders of the school community. Critical to achieving success is the fact that thevision of the school is shared by all the leaders so that its implementation rangesacross a wide scope of influence. When the vision becomes widely grounded inthe routine activities of the school, it is known as institutionalization of vision.

The concept of leadership developed in the conceptual framework of thisbook is one which takes account of a multi-dimensional view of leadership. Itencompasses Sergiovanni’s (1984) five forces of leadership (technical, human,educational, symbolic, cultural), Sergiovanni and Starratt’s (1988) notion ofinstitutionalizing vision, and includes Bolman and Deal’s (1991) reorganizationof the key concepts embodied in the accumulated leadership theory into thecategories of structural, human resource, political and symbolic dimensions.

Leadership, then, is seen here as drawing upon Yukl’s definition outlinedabove, and as transformational, embracing a composite of the notions ofleadership density, multi-dimensional leadership forces, and theinstitutionalization of vision.

Transformational as Opposed to Transactional Leadership

This book sets out to untangle and clarify our conception of leadership, or atleast what our own perception of leadership might be. To me this perception isof fundamental significance, guiding the way leaders operate in their schools.Whilst most of the current literature espouses transformational leadership as theenlightened way to achieve school success in practice as in theory, there is oftena lack of commitment to the key features which are integral to itsmaterialization. At the theoretical level, conceptual differences of belief as towhat transformational leadership is, present a serious quandary. For, example,Leithwood’s paper presented at the Seventh International Congress for SchoolEffectiveness and Improvement in 1994 describes a form of two-factortransformational leadership as a composite of transactional and transformationalelements, including the transactional notion of ‘contingent reward’ where theleader tells staff what to do in order to be rewarded for their efforts’ (Leithwood,1994:9). Gronn’s (1995:14) rendition of the model of the transformationalleader ‘as a resurrected version and virtually defunct leader type…the hero orgreat leader’ conveys another conceptual interpretation. Gronn (1995:25)equates Bass’s conception of transformational leadership with a rugged type ofindividualism and suggests that it ‘carries with it all the hallmarks of a religiouscrusade and being born again’. Leithwood and Gronn appear to attach meaningsof individual leadership to the notion of transformational leadership and futherimply a subordinate relationship between leader and staff. It would seem a


12

serious conceptual shift from Burns’ definition of transformational leadershiphas been made by both Leithwood and Gronn, moving away from the notion ofgroup exchange to individual exchange. In Burns’ meaning, the position posedby Leithwood in his 1994 paper, and Gronn in his 1995 article, is that oftransactional, not transformational, leadership. Burns’ (1978) centralproposition on transformational leadership involves members of an organizationpursuing shared beliefs, through combined efforts, overriding their individualinterests in the quest for the common good (see p. 11). This aligns with theposition presented in this book where critical significance is given tocollaboration of the whole school community, or its nominated representatives, asthe underpinning constituent leading to school success. The notion of leadershipdensity, where teachers (and others) become empowered to take on the role ofleaders, and jointly undertake the institutionalization of the school’s vision, isfundamental to the notion of collaboration. The focus of this book strenuouslyproposes that Burns’ distinction between transactional and transformationalleadership be adopted, for if leadership is to be truly collaborative, grouppurposes are fundamental to its success, rather than transactional exchangebetween leader and the led.

Further, Gronn’s likening of transformational leadership to a religious crusadeoverstates and glamorizes the reality of work in schools, and, I daresay,organizations in general. Being a leader in a school in the 1990s is no picnic.There are no loaves and fishes here. Just plain hard work, dedication and a firmdesire to do the right thing for the young people and families in our collectivecare. This is done by putting our heads together and discussing, challenging,brainstorming, arguing and problem-solving our way through the issues,steadfastly and resolutely. The reality of what is happening in schools is this—wedo not have the answer about how to proceed. We do not know, nor does anyone else.However, we do know that what is needed is improvement, not maintenance.What then do we do? Do we wait for a prophet, religious or charismatic, toappear from on high? The related theory and research of the past fifty years, andbest practice of the 1990s, indicates otherwise, for it plainly tells us that no singleperson alone has the combined capacity to do the job.

At the practical level, where individual transactions (as Leithwood seems to besuggesting), albeit judicious or innovative ones between the principal or seniorstaff are the norm, can bring disastrous results. I speak in such strong terms asmy own experience has brought some salutary lessons to bear on this front. Ihave witnessed transactional leadership causing the undoing of many leaders andthe downfall of several good schools, as it unwittingly brings about a negativeschool culture where confusion, distrust, lack of cooperation and even dissentprevail. Such a culture is not conducive to a successful teaching and learningenvironment, nor to the educational well-being of students. Positive schoolcultures are hard won, but they are darned easy to lose. There is a surprisingfragility in an organization’s state of good health and its condition candeteriorate swiftly if the modus operandi is one which relies on individual, ratherthan collective, negotiation and decision-making. If we want to improve our


13

organizations we must work together in a focused way, as parts of a single entity,to identify and achieve the purposes critical to making classrooms real places oflearning for our students. The prophet has already arrived and is amongst us, butnot in the shape of the singular form—in the plural. This is the essence oftransformative leadership. It centres around workgroups of committedprofessionals who, with shared and directed purpose, have the capacity to worktogether in a problem-solving way to determine tentative answers to theunknown, to take action on the basis of what they have discovered, and move on.In doing so they make schools better places to be; places of continuing learningfor both themselves and their students.

As far as ideal leadership per se goes, it is stressed that we have not arrived atthe answer, and the struggle to come closer to it proceeds forward as it has in thepast, and will continue to do in the future. However, there are few amongst us,I would venture to say, who are not striving for an understanding of doing abetter job as a leader in their school, and few who do not aspire to making aconstructive difference in the educational setting in which they work. Crusaderswill not make a difference, collaborators will. Transformational, nottransactional, leadership is required if schools are to become the places we wantthem to be, and if we are to lead them successfully into the unchartered watersahead. The following chapters present one version of how this might be doneand seek to advance our understanding of what can be done.

The Bolman and Deal Framework

Clearly an explicit and precise conception of what transformational leadership isneeds to be delineated. The latter part of this chapter details Bolman and Deal’s(1991) approach, for it is that approach which has been adopted to form thestructural, human resource, political and symbolic framework around whichleadership in the participating schools has been investigated. Using thisanalytical tool, and drawing heavily on the related leadership literaturesummarized previously, the concept of transformational leadership is explored inits collaborative mode, and elements of collaboration across the four frames areextracted to formulate an operational definition of collaborative leadership. Thefollowing section of this chapter provides a means by which a clear and succinctclarification of transformational leadership can be advanced; one which has thepotential to avoid inherent confusion and misinterpretation.

The previous section of this chapter sets out in some detail the definitions anddistinctions surrounding the notion of leadership in the context of schools in the1990s. Implicit in these definitions and distinctions is the understanding thatleadership has many dimensions. Bolman and Deal in their 1991 publication,Reframing Organisations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership, suggest a reorganizationof the key concepts embodied in the accumulated body of leadership theory intowhat they call four frames. These four frames classify what is currently knownabout leadership into four categories—structural, human resource, political and


14

symbolic—providing a framework for understanding and decoding theleadership milieu of a school or organization. The structural frame emphasizesthe importance of formal roles and relationships where the focus is onorganizational direction and goals, roles, policies, procedures, coordination andplanning. The human resource frame acknowledges that organizations areinhabited by individuals whose talents, skills and energy are the organization’smost valuable resource. Effective leadership takes account of this, arrangingstructures and conditions to meet professional and personal needs of staff. Thepolitical frame addresses the political realities of an organization. Used wisely,political power is seen as a constructive and necessary part of the leadershipfunction. The symbolic frame tunes into the non-rational aspect oforganizational activity decoding embedded beliefs, values, attitudes and normsof behaviour of the organizational culture. Bolman and Deal (1991) advocate astrategy called ‘framing’ which ensures that any analysis of leadership is onewhich incorporates all contingencies and complexities across the four frames,thereby taking account of the composite of leadership understandings.

Framing

Bolman and Deal describe their concept of framing:

The perspectives, or frames…are based on four major schools oforganizational theory and research and we have outlined the centralassumptions and propositions of each of them… Our goal is useableknowledge… Each of these frames has its own vision or image of reality.Only when managers, consultants, and policy-makers can look throughall four are they likely to appreciate the depth and complexity oforganizational life (Bolman and Deal, 1991:14–16).

Drawing on Erving Goffman’s (1974) seminal work on frame theory, Bolmanand Deal (1991) explain how four frames of leadership enlarge the focus ofleaders’ thinking to bring a more versatile and artistic dimension toorganizational practice. Key concepts drawn from existing organizational theory-cultural, symbolic, educational, human and technical—have been consolidatedand reorganized into the structural, human resource, political and symbolicframes, providing a framework on which to interpret, analyse and understandwhat is happening in an organization. Bolman and Deal’s notion of framingrelates to all organizations, drawing on examples from the business and thepublic sector, as well as from education. The full picture of organizationalcomplexity, Bolman and Deal suggest (1991:xv), will remain elusive unless allangles are taken into consideration. Use of the four frames enable ‘managerialfreedom and leadership effectiveness’ by looking at the same situation in anorganization in four different ways—structural, human resource, political andsymbolic. A narrow, simplistic view is thus avoided and, instead, some real sense


15

of the organizational milieu is realized and can be acted upon. Bolman and Dealcaution leaders to be aware of their preferred perspectives (frames) and itsoveruse to the detriment of alternative ones. ‘People who understand their ownframe—and who have learnt to rely on more than one perspective—are betterequipped to understand and manage the complex everyday world oforganizations’ (Bolman and Deal, 1991:14). Ability to move in and out of thefour frames brings deeper insights and a broadening of horizons, allowingeclectic use of the current, composite body of theoretical knowledge. Reframing,then, is a process of thorough, active, practical analysis and implementation ofleadership theory.

Each frame is based on a body of knowledge drawn from contributingdisciplines. The structural frame, rooted in sociology, focuses on the formalstructure and operations of the school; the human resource frame draws onorganizational social psychology, addressing the skills and needs of educators; thepolitical frame, has its origin in political science, centering on the politicalrelations of power in the school community; and the symbolic frame is foundedin social and cultural anthropology, focusing on values and beliefs of the peoplein an organization and the culture in which they reside. Bolman and Dealmaintain that, whilst all these bodies of knowledge have a legitimatecontribution to make, each has its own assumptions about how schools andpeople work together. ‘Each body of theory purports to rest on a scientificfoundation. But theories are often theologies that preach only one version of thescripture’ (Bolman and Deal, 1991:10). The combined use, therefore, of all‘theologies’ through the use of the four frames brings a complete picture whichotherwise may remain wanting.

The Structural Frame

The structural frame emphasizes the importance of formal roles andrelationships. ‘Structures—commonly depicted by means of organizationalcharts—are created to fit an organisation’s environment and technology’(Bolman and Deal, 1991:15). The focus is on organizational direction and goals,roles, policies, procedures and co-ordination and planning. The structuralprocesses in the school provide the vehicle by which clarification of direction,roles and documentation of policies and procedures can be communicated andundertaken and, therefore, is a means by which the vision of the school is putinto practice.

Caldwell and Spinks’ (1988) model offers an example of a structuralframework for whole school planning where organizational direction, roles,policies and procedures are coordinated and systematically managed, through aprocess of collaboration which:

• integrates goal-setting, policy-making, planning, budgeting,implementing and evaluating in a manner which contrasts with the


16

often unsystematic, fragmented processes which have caused so muchfrustration and ineffectiveness in the past;

• secures appropriate involvement of staff, students and the community,with clearly denned roles for governing bodies where such groups existand have responsibility for policy-making;

• focuses on the central functions of schools—learning and teaching-and,accordingly, organizes the management of the school around‘programmes’ which correspond to the preferred patterns of work in theschool (Caldwell and Spinks, 1988:3).

The model contains the six phases of goal-setting and need identification,policy-making, planning and programs, preparation and approval of programbudgets, and implementing and evaluating. Here it is advocated that the goalsand needs of the school are kept to the fore when policy-making and planningtake place. An updated version (Caldwell and Spinks, 1992:33) adds the elementof culture into the model, and provides guidelines for leaders for shaping astrong culture in their schools. Such structural arrangements are integral toleadership in schools, and take into account Sergiovanni’s (1984) technical forceof leadership.

The Human Resource Frame

The human resource frame is underpinned by the premise that schools are socialorganizations steeped in human needs, wants and claims (Argyris, 1984; Owens,1991). There is constant interplay between the individual and the organizationto ensure a fit between administrative goals and individual members. Iforganizations are alienating in their operation, valuable human talents are lostand human lives become unfulfilled (Deal, 1990). Effective leadership takesaccount of the fact that people and organizations need each other. Organizationsneed professional experience and expertise, ideas and commitment; people needsatisfying work, an income and social and personal expression. Good leadershipis sensitive to this interdependence, arranging structures and conditions to meetthe professional and personal needs of staff.

The quality of the decisions which are made, and the improved outcomes forstudents that result from them, will depend on the extent to which leadersoperate over the broad base of all those who are directly responsible for theeducation of the students in the school, including teachers, students, parents andother members of the school community. Genuine involvement in schooldecision-making acknowledges and values the collective skills and expertise of allwithin the organization, believing each can contribute meaningfully in their ownway. Participatory decision-making ensures that those responsible forimplementing decisions or policies are actively engaged in the decisionmakingprocess itself; not in a one-off or occasional capacity but as a continuous, on-going and integral part of daily school operations. As well, teachers need to have


17

the opportunity for professional learning and development in a context that is atonce supportive and challenging. Drawing on such human resources strengthensthe educational environment for our children. Leithwood (1992:96) explains,‘principals look below the surface features of their schools—at how teachers aretreated and what beliefs, norms and values they share—and redesign theirschools as learning environments for teachers as well as for students.’

The Political Frame

According to Bolman and Deal (1991:187), ‘the political frame asserts that inthe face of enduring differences and scarce resources, conflict among members ofa coalition is inevitable and power incidentally becomes a resource.’ Politicalbehaviour is an inevitable consequence of a social organization and includes, asRobbins (1989:353) states, ‘those activities that are not required as part of one’sformal role in the organisation but that influence, or attempt to influence, thedistribution of advantages and disadvantages within the organisation.’

Political tactics need not bear negative connotations. Used wisely politicalpower is a constructive and necessary part of the leadership function. Leaders usepower as a means of attaining group goals and facilitating achievements.Solutions to problems can be developed through political skill and acumen.Negotiation and bargaining are all part of everyday organizational life. If, asBolman and Deal (1991) suggest, the goals, structure and policies of a schoolemerge from an ongoing process of bargaining and negotiating among staff, thenthere is a pressing need for leaders to be active in the political process.

Given the social nature of schools and the fact that the entire educationalenterprise revolves around people, political behaviour is inescapable. As Robbins(1989:339) states ‘the acquisition and distribution of power is a natural processin any group or organisation.’ Here political realities are recognized and ‘humanbeings live out their daily lives and socially construct their reality through thenegotiations, contractions and resistances of the rules and resources withinwhich their lives are entwined’ (Watkins, 1989:23).

The Symbolic Frame

The concept of culture has had a central role in the leadership debate. Leaders inschools know they must work simultaneously on staff needs and skills, on goalsand roles and the dynamics of political power and conflict. But there issomething that operates beyond all these, an intangible manifestation thatreflects the ethos or climate of a school. This tapestry that is woven into thefabric of the organization is known as its culture. Sergiovanni (1984) delineatesa cultural leadership force as developing shared values and purposes. Deal andPeterson (1990:7) describe school culture:


18

This invisible, taken-for-granted flow of beliefs and assumptions givesmeaning to what people say and do. It shapes how they interprethundreds of daily transactions. This deeper structure of life inorganizations is reflected and transmitted through symbolic languageand expressive action. Culture consists of the stable, underlying socialmeanings that shape belief and behaviour over time.

This conglomerate of beliefs, values, attitudes and norms of behaviour areembedded in the activities of school life and are represented in the symbols,rituals and ceremonies of the school. Deal and Kennedy (1982) advanced thethinking on school culture, writing of heroes and myths, demons, rituals andceremonies which wield a powerful influence behind the rationality oforganizational management. As Starratt (1993:5) states:

Leadership in the cultural perspective is exercized not so much byscientific management as by guarding essential values of the culture, byreminding people in the organization of the essential meanings of theculture, by promoting rituals and celebrations which sustain thoseessential meanings and values.

The symbolic frame is a means of decoding the culture. It tunes into the non-rational aspect of organizational activity. However, in terms of conceptualizingthe symbolic perspective, it is important to distinguish it from the notion ofculture. In many writings associated with leadership theory, culture is seen assynonymous with values, beliefs, shared meanings, symbols, rituals andceremonies. Whilst acknowledging that the two are closely aligned, the positiontaken here is that symbolic aspects do not equal culture. In this book,collaborative culture is interpreted in a broader context which importantlyincludes the symbolic frame, but also embraces structural, human resource andpolitical perspectives. This distinction is a critical one, for it lies at the heart ofa broader conceptualization of the notion of collaboration, and, indeed, culture.Exactly what is meant by this will be the subject of the following chapter.Initially discussion will be given to the culture of a school; more specificallyemphasis will focus on a collaborative culture. From this theoretical background,elements of collaborative leadership will be identified and an operationaldefinition developed.

19

Chapter 2

Collaborative Leadership

This chapter sets out to make some meaning of what collaborative leadership isin practice, namely, what collaborative leaders do in their schools to achievesuccess for students, teachers and the organization itself. In this book, thenotion of collaborative leadership is extended into structural, human resourceand political domains, in addition to symbolic perspectives, providing a fullerpicture and a more comprehensive base for interpretation of the leadershipmilieu. As with collaborative leadership, this extended view has directimplications for the notion of a collaborative culture of a school, for instead ofviewing culture as purely symbolic in its roots, it can be seen as inclusive ofstructural, human resource and political dimensions. This broader conceptualframework has been developed to act as a guide for leaders in their dailypractice. However, before discussing it further, a brief account follows ofthe related research undertaken so far in the field of collaboration. Authors havegiven much attention to describing collaborative cultures in schools andthis brings significant and pertinent findings and offer insights of value in thisstudy.

Setting the Background of Collaboration in Schools

Traditional school cultures were based on norms of professional isolation andautonomy (Goodlad, 1984; Johnson, 1990; Lortie, 1975). These cultures hadtheir place in schools where narrow academic expectations prevailed, parentsmade a significant contribution to the education of students, school leaders werenot required to act as instructional leaders, accountability was unimportant,community relationships were weak and there were few external pressures forchange; teaching was seen as a craft with limited need for technical knowledge.As these circumstances no longer exist in the majority of schools, and areespecially alien to urban schools, it is not surprising that a different culture inschools is emerging, broadly termed a collaborative culture.

Early studies of collaboration at the school level were generated by thepioneering work of Dan Lortie (1975) whose research centred on teachers—what they valued and how their workplace functioned. Lortie’s work, SchoolTeacher: A Sociological Book, revealed that the cellular organization of schools


20

separates teachers from their colleagues, resulting in professional isolation. As aresult, norms of not sharing their professional work develop, and a commonculture is inhibited. Teachers are student-centred and their primary interest liesin the classroom, with the needs of children and how best to address them.However, uncertainty characterizes the mood of teachers, who are not surewhether or not they have had an influence on their students, or, indeed, whetherthey live up to the expectations of a ‘good’ teacher. Lortie’s studies have beenconfirmed in numerous other inquiries (Clark and Yinger, 1977; House andLapan, 1978; Huberman, 1983). Further research followed. Little (1982a)investigated why it was that schools where collegial exchange took place weresuch a rarity. Goodlad’s (1984) analysis of the context in which teacher worksubstantiated the theme of autonomous isolation. What is of concern here is thequality of what was being taught, and the way in which it was being delivered tostudents, if left solely to individual teachers who have little or no professionalcontact in their schools.

More recent studies have investigated the phenomenon of collaboration asopposed to isolation. Two of particular note were completed and published in1989, one by Susan Rosenholtz in the United States, the other by Jennifer Nias,Geoff Southworth and Robin Yeomans in the United Kingdom. Rosenholtz’sTeachers’ Workplace: The Social Organization Of Schools gives an enlighteningaccount of the collaborative work environments of thirteen ‘moving’ or‘learning-enriched’ primary schools in Tennessee. Her main book contends thatlearning-enriched schools, in contrast to learning-impoverished schools, arecharacterized by a collaborative culture which engenders shared goals, staffnorms of continuous learning and mutual support and technical confidence ofteachers, directly resulting in high teacher commitment and improved studentlearning. Rosenholtz labels schools with strong levels of collaboration, in whichteachers have a common purpose and work openly and cooperatively, as ‘high-consensus’ schools and tells us they are distinguished by a sense of cohesion andcommunity. As well, ‘high consensus and forward-moving schools were markedby a spirit of continuous improvement in which no teacher ever stopped learninghow to teach’ (Rosenholtz, 1989:xi). What this means in practice is that acollaborative environment makes it possible for all staff to workunselfconsciously together as a team, despite all their differences, sharing acommon goal, to be collectively responsible for its attainment and to help eachother towards it.

Nias and her colleagues in their book, Staff Relationships in the Primary School,give a thorough account of the collaborative cultures of five English primaryschools, already noted for their positive staff relationships. The authors taughtand worked in the schools for a year and produced findings which showed thatcollaboration is immersed in the very culture of a school. They proposed thatwhat characterized the collaborative workplace in the schools in their project wasa dominant culture of shared values, beliefs and understandings which werearrived at through informal personal interactions. Nias, et al., (1989:208)describe collaboration in schools:


21

…in the choreography of collaborative schools, norms of self-relianceappeared to be selfish infractions against school community. Withteaching defined as inherently difficult, many minds tended to workbetter together than the few. Here requests for and offers of advice andassistance seemed more like moral imperatives, and colleagues seldomacted without foresight and deliberate calculation. Teacher leaders wereidentified as those who reached out to each other with encouragement,technical knowledge to solve classroom problems, and enthusiasm forlearning new things.

This collaborative work culture acknowledges and values the interdependence ofthe individual and the group in a school and effectively harnesses that balance ofrelationships so that, as Fullan and Hargreaves (1991:49) put it, ‘the individualand the group are inherently and simultaneously valued.’ As a consequence,teachers in this culture are empowered personally and collectively, acquiring acombined confidence which enables them to respond critically to the demandsof the workplace.

In 1990, Susan Moore Johnson undertook her research in public and privateschools of the eastern districts of Massachusetts in the United States. It waspublished in Teachers Work: Achieving Success in Our Schools. She interviewedover 100 highly respected teachers and discovered that good teachers wereleaving the classroom because schools did not encourage an environment thatstimulated good teaching. Her main contention was that good teaching requiresa workplace which actively encourages collegiality and collaboration. She furthermaintains that schools, as they are presently organized, work against this andneed to be restructured to allow for the kind of working environment whichfosters cooperative teaching practice. These outcomes were confirmed by YinCheong Cheng (1993) in his paper on principal leadership in 190 primaryschools in Hong Kong. Cheng reported that the principal’s leadership is a criticalfactor for school performance at multi-levels. Cheng developed a ‘measure ofstrong leadership’ in which ‘a principal can be supportive and fosterparticipation for teachers, can develop clear goals and policies and hold peopleaccountable for results, can be persuasive at building alliances and solvingconflicts, can be inspirational and charismatic, and can encourage professionaldevelopment and teaching improvement.’ This ‘strong’ leadership is associatedwith high organizational effectiveness, strong organizational culture, positiveprincipal—teacher relationships, more participation in decision-making, highteacher morale and professionalism, less teacher disengagement and hindrance,more teacher job satisfaction and commitment, and more positive studentperformance particularly on attitudes to their schools and learning (Cheng,1993: abstract). Cheng’s description of strong leadership provides a context forleadership which is relevant to this book, drawing as it does on structural,human, political, and symbolic dimensions advocated by Bolman and Deal(1991). The Australian Principals Associations Professional DevelopmentCouncil in their 1993 publication Leaders and Their Learning: Professional


22

Development Priorities for Principals (1993:37), noted a strong correlationbetween collaborative leadership and effective teacher development.

Studies of leadership in urban schools in the United States have beenundertaken by Miles (1987), and in Canada by Fullan (1988) and Leithwoodand Jantzi (1990). Miles’ work was concerned with a broad focus on a numberof factors associated with leadership and school improvement. Of particularinterest to this book are the factors of empowerment and initiative-taking.Fullan’s writings focus on school effectiveness, including studies of collegiality.Leithwood and Jantzi’s (1990) research looks at transformational leadership inschools and the extent to which it develops collaborative cultures. Their inquirystrongly parallels the focus of this book. Leithwood and Jantzi systematicallyassessed the degree of collaboration in nine primary and three secondary urbanschools noted for their significant improvement in Ontario, Canada,establishing connections between transformational leadership strategies and thedevelopment of collaborative cultures. Six broad strategies which were used byleaders to influence school cultures:

• strengthening the school’s culture;• use of a variety of bureaucratic mechanisms to stimulate and reinforce

cultural change;• fostering of staff development;• engaging in direct and frequent communication about cultural norms,

values and beliefs;• shared power and responsibility with others; and• use of symbols to express cultural values.

The foregoing research indicates that a culture of collegiality whichsimultaneously values, and caters to individual and group needs results in acollaborative workplace which will advance the teaching practice of a school,and, therefore, the enhancement of student learning. Fullan and Hargreaves(1991b:48) describe their interpretation of a fully functioning collaborativeculture:

What characterizes cultures of collaboration are not formalorganization, meetings or bureaucratic procedures. Nor are cultures ofcollaboration mounted for specific projects and events. Rather, theyconsist of pervasive qualities, attitudes, and behaviours that run throughstaff relationships on a moment-by-moment, day-by-day basis. Help,support, trust and openness are at the heart of these relationships.Beneath that, there is a commitment to valuing people as individualsand valuing the groups to which people belong.

Fullan and Hargreaves’ interpretation of a fully functioning collaborative culturefalls short of the broader conceptualization presented in this book. It is anextremely apt description of the symbolic aspects of collaboration, but overlooks


23

structural, human resource and political dimensions. Fullan and Hargreaves’interpretation reflects mainstream thinking on the subject of collaboration.Therefore it is necessary to ask ourselves what collaboration is. In the absence ofany formal definition in the preceding literature, an operational definition ofcollaboration must be developed in this chapter, based on findings from therelated theory and research, and, importantly, centering around quite specific andextensive collaborative elements of leadership. These specific collaborativeelements have been categorized into Bolman and Deal’s four frames—structural,human resource, political and symbolic—in order to ensure the full range ofpotentialities and complexities of leadership have been embraced. This is asignificant process as recent writings exploring the nature of collegiality havecautioned educators on its superficial or negative aspects (Fullan, 1993;Hargreaves and Dawe, 1990; Huberman, 1991; Little, 1990). The integration ofthe collaborative elements into the four frames forms a conceptual frameworkfrom which collaborative leadership behaviours can be viewed in an extendedand comprehensive form, which is critical if a narrow focus is to be avoided.

At this point it is worth noting that collaboration is one aspect oftransformational leadership. Chapter 1 documented the related literaturesurrounding the leadership discussion, and together with the findings of theInner Melbourne Leadership Project’s Exploratory investigation (Preface:IMLPE xi), many elements of leadership have been identified. However, thisbook has limited its focus to concepts specifically pertaining to elements ofcollaborative leadership, and has moved from transformational leadership ingeneral, to collaborative leadership in particular.

Collaborative Leadership—A Conceptual Framework

The following elements emerge in a synthesis of findings in the review of relatedliterature and the exploratory investigation, and are organized into the Bolmanand Deal frames:

Elements of collaboration

structural frame • democratic processes;• leadership density;• direction/vision;• shared goals;• shared responsibility;• roles;• policy processes;• program procedures;• coordination;


24

• planning;• listening;• frank, open and frequent communication.

human resource frame • centrality of teaching and learning;• strong sense of community;• value and regard for professional development;• teachers as curriculum leaders;• parents as co-partners;• teams;• teachers teaching teachers;• professional honesty;• support, praise and trust;• acceptance;• sharing;• continuous learning;• continuous improvement;• positive student/staff relations;• staff cohesion.

political frame • absence of hierarchy;• power-sharing;• open discussion;• consensus;• majority rule;• shared responsibility;• using authority;• using influence;• diffusing conflict;• agreed-upon ‘political’ behaviour;• participatory decision-making procedures;• disagreements not seen as disruptive;• absence of sub-groups;• negotiation;• coalitions;• networks;• frank, open and frequent communication.

symbolic frame • beliefs;• values;• attitudes;• norms of behaviour;


25

• shared meanings;• symbols;• rituals;• ceremonies.

The categorization of these elements has been made in an attempt to rationalizewhat by very nature is an irrational context, namely the vigorously dynamicmilieu of the day-to-day endeavours of a school. Each of the elements isinextricably linked and interrelated to each other. However, for the purposes ofeliciting their cause and effect relationships, elements have been grouped andclassified into the four frames. It is recognized that the elements may becategorized differently. Many combinations and permutations could legitimatelybe made. For example, vision has been included in the structural frame, where itdenotes the clear direction which underlines and steers policy-making andimplementation, planning, coordination and so on, all of which are critical tothe inclusive nature of a structurally collaborative culture. On the other handvision might be seen to naturally fall into the classification of the symbolic frameas it is so profoundly symbolic in character. For my purposes, however, theemphasis of the element of vision was to be one of overtly shared purposes whichwould translate the beliefs of the whole school community into the daily practiceof the school. Conceptually, vision can be alternatively construed as personal innature and somewhat covert in make-up. It is with the former characteristics thatthe notion of vision has been adopted for this book and has therefore beenincluded in the structural frame.

Similarly, the element of listening could be interchangeably included in otherframes depending on the emphasis required. Listening is an integral part of theparticipatory decision-making process (structural); listening brings aboutsupport or continuous improvement (human resource); listening is critical toopen discussion or diffusing conflict (political); and, listening is implicit to avaluing of participation and an attitude of inclusiveness (symbolic). Theinterrelated nature of the elements in reality makes for a contrived and arbitraryseparation. It is my view that any categorization is a necessary, but limiting,exercise to uncover the practical specifics of the causal connections ofcollaborative leadership. The critical factor is that within the composite of theinterrelationships of elements, no matter where they are listed, each element isincluded and is a significant contributor to the whole. The cross connections andinterchangeability of these elements are further evidence for the need of adefinition which goes beyond the symbolic frame.

Collaborative Leadership—A Definition

An integration of the above collaborative elements into Bolman and Deal’s fourframes, have been combined to provide an operational definition of collaborativeleadership. This definition is illustrated in Figure 3 below.


26

In Figure 3, the structural elements of leadership, which contribute to acollaborative leadership, refer to the way in which leaders structuredecisionmaking processes to allow appropriate staff, student and parentparticipation such that a shared vision and agreed-upon ways of implementingthe direction, policies and programs of the school can occur. In the exploratoryinvestigation these were noted by a flat hierarchy, frank and opencommunication, listening, respecting and valuing people and empowerment.

Human resource elements refer to the professional development of staffthrough cooperative sharing of their collective experience. It assumes leadersfoster an environment of mutual support, professional acceptance andcontinuous learning. It is characterized by a focus on the centrality of learningand teaching as the school’s primary purpose and high levels of staff and studentcommitment.

Political elements of collaborative leader behaviour centre around reachingagreement through discussion, negotiation and compromise in a climate ofopenness. Disagreement and discord are expected in the social, value-ladencontext of the school. Rather than being seen as hindrances to successfulpractice, legitimate political processes are incorporated as part of everyday life,facilitating the attainment of shared goals and advancing the educational agenda.

Symbolic elements of a collaboration are characterized by deep-seated, oftenunspoken, shared beliefs, values and attitudes which bring about norms ofinteraction, friendly, informal staff relations and a pervasive camaraderie.Collaborative leaders value diversity, acceptance of differences, interpersonal

Figure 3: Elements of collaborative leadership


27

openness and an atmosphere of genuine care, and concern for colleagues,personally and professionally is the norm. Rituals and ceremonies symbolize,and give visible presence to, symbolic perspectives. Structural, human resource,political and symbolic elements are all inextricably linked and interrelated. Theirsegregation into the four frames offers a focus for analysis and a means of makingsense of what often seems to be an irrational and chaotic working world.

Summary

Fully functioning collaborative leadership ensures the vision of the schoolbecomes, in Sergiovanni and Starratt’s (1988:213) terms, ‘institutionalized’.Collaborative leadership is transforming leadership, facilitating the developmentand the maintenance of a culture immersed in structural, human, political andsymbolic elements, changing the school into one of achievement and success. Inthe seemingly intractable conditions facing schools at the present time, acollaborative culture would appear to be critical in meeting the attendantchallenges. Leithwood, Begley and Cousins (1992:129) observe:

such a culture appears to be adaptive to increasingly prevalentconditions associated with calls for reform such as: new and morecomplex expectations for student outcomes; school-leaders able toprovide instructional leadership; high expectations by the public for itsschools and many associated external pressures or change; a rapidlyexpanding body of technical know-how concerning instruction; andchanging family environments.

These are significant and pertinent findings and offer insights of value for thisinvestigation. Whilst studies in the United States, Canada and Britain have beencarried out to identify the nature of a collaborative culture, few address thenotion of what it is that leaders actually do in schools to promote, develop andsustain a collaborative culture. Findings of the exploratory study and a review ofthe related theory and research suggested that the issue of collaborativeleadership in schools is one of considerable professional interest and one worthyof further research. The research undertaken here thus attempts to broaden theexisting knowledge in this domain. Chapter 3 which follows details the researchmethodology undertaken in this study, including the selection of schools, anddata collection and analysis. It also addresses issues of validity and reliability andidentifies the limitations of the study.

28

Chapter 3

Research Methodology

The theoretical discussion documented in the previous chapter paves the way forexploration of the key issues of this book, namely, what it is that leaders do topromote and develop collaborative cultures in their schools, and, how thiscollaborative leadership actually brings about success. That is what happens forstudents, teachers, and the organization as a whole, as a result of effectiveleadership? Answers to these questions were sought by interviewing arepresentative sample of 40 school leaders from five inner city schools inMelbourne, Australia. The process undertaken in reaching answers is detailed inthis chapter.

Selection of Schools*

Five urban schools were identified and agreed to take part in the research for thisbook. They are as follows:

• Clematis Secondary College• Kennedia Primary School• Cassinia Secondary College• Boronia West High School• Banksia Primary School

The schools were either nominated or self-nominated and offered a mix ofprimary and secondary levels of schooling, as well as a range of characteristicsassociated with urban schools. Appendix 1 is an example of the profilequestionnaire that was given to each of the participating schools.

Nominated schools were put forward by the manager of the Inner MelbourneSupport Centre, in consultation with his staff, on the basis of their knowledge ofthe schools. Only one of the nominated schools, the Boronia West High School,took up the offer to participate in the book. The remainder of the schools takingpart were self-nominated. The opportunity to self-nominate arose as a result of

* Please note that all names of schools used here are fictitous and any resemblance is purely coincidental.


29

a meeting held for urban school principals, where the book was outlined andprincipals were briefed as to the four criteria of success which the book was toaddress:

• Outstanding improvements in outcomes in recent years, in theprogram of the school as a whole or in one or more aspects of theprogram;

• Success in the introduction of new approaches to learning and teaching,or the organization or support of learning and teaching;

• Success in addressing a particular problem or set of problems;• Sustained achievement over many years.

The principals offered to participate in the project if they felt their school metthe criteria for success. Kennedia Primary School, Clematis Secondary College,Cassinia Secondary School and Banksia Primary School nominated themselvesand thus became part of the project. Five schools in total, therefore, became partof the investigation, one nominated and four self-nominated.

The Boronia West High School was nominated by the Manager of the InnerMelbourne Support Centre, in consultation with his staff, on the basis ofsustained achievement over many years, and continued success in theintroduction of new approaches to learning and teaching, particularly in cateringfor children who may not have found success in more traditional settings.

Clematis Secondary College nominated itself for its success in addressing aparticular problem, namely ‘responding to its community and accommodatingits educational needs’ resulting in outstanding improvements in outcomes inrecent years in the program of the school as a whole. This is evident in theelective system of subjects designed ‘to provide students with a greater sense ofempowerment over their school lives, and a greater commitment to their studiesby putting the greatest degree of choice about subjects studied in the hands ofstudents and their families.’ This has been achieved by the introduction of avertical structure for both academic and pastoral domains, that accommodatesthe needs of a school community with ‘a trait of Mediterranean and Asiancultures for a strong emphasis on the family, with other siblings looking afteryounger ones.’

Kennedia Primary School sees its success lying in the organization and supportof teaching and learning where ‘all members of a diverse school community workharmoniously together, with multicultural teacher aides providing valuableliaison between home, school and the broader community’; where a tradition ofdemocratic decision-making exists, the school council is functioning effectivelyand the degree of parental support and interest in educational issues isincreasing; where all staff are involved in the school’s committee structure; wherestaff members are co-operative and supportive of each other; where there is on-going professional development; where there is a commitment to social justiceissues and, where policy-writing, evaluation and review of curriculumdevelopment are established components of school organization and are working


30

effectively. In addition, there has been innovation in the curriculum, namely acomprehensive Personal Development program and a Visual Arts program andthe development of the Maths Task Centre.

Cassinia Secondary College identified outstanding improvements in outcomesin recent years, in one or more aspects of the school program, as the reason fortheir inclusion in the project. They describe their accomplishments as theintroduction of a comprehensive Year 9/10 elective program, which allows ‘somechoice and some specialization, but maintains breadth and allows FrameworksUnits (areas of disciplined study) to be tailored to the local area or changingcircumstances or student interests’; the full integration of technology into theyear 7–10 program; the provision of a Technology Program for local primaryschools; a strong Transition Program in partnership with local primary schools;the formation of the Cassinia Yarra Schools Group; well-developed studentwelfare and Integration initiatives; a comprehensive Careers/Counsellingprogram; and An Equal Opportunity Program to enhance the position ofminority groups, including girls.

Banksia Primary School believes its success is centred around the introductionof new approaches to the organization and support of learning and teaching. Itcites ‘great policies, cooperation, team efforts at all levels, open decision-making,promotion of people who are doing well, and involvement in the localcommunity’ as inclusive of its accomplishments.

These five urban schools, their staff, their students and their parents, providedthe context for this research and the source of its findings. Not all schools werefully collaborative in all aspects. The findings have been drawn from those areaswhere the majority of participating schools were collaborative. It is not to beimplied, therefore, that all findings necessarily apply to all schools. Whilst for thepurposes of analysis, findings have been separated into the structural, humanresource, political and symbolic frames, it is acknowledged that these fouraspects are inextricably interrelated, and are simultaneously interwoven inpractice.

Data Collection and Analysis

I used a qualitative approach as an appropriate means of investigating theresearch questions in order to provide rich descriptions and explanations ofsituational influences. This is a conscious move away from the positivist,reductionist approach of behaviourism to a more descriptive, naturalisticphenomenology of leaders in action. Qualitative research ‘assumes thatsystematic inquiry must occur in a natural setting rather than an artificiallyconstrained one such as an experiment’ (Marshall and Rossman, 1989:10). Itspurpose is to work from the setting in which the inquiry is being made so thatthe depth of complexities surrounding the topic of the book can be uncoveredand linked appropriately to the findings; that is, a holistic understanding can begained. Qualitative research methodology also allows for insight from the


31

subject’s view of what is being studied, not simply from the author’s. This bringsauthenticity, as well as the possibility of broadening the hypothesizedparameters. The ‘naturalistic’ element (Crowther and Gibson, 1990; Stake,1967) which exists in qualitative analysis helps the author go beyond initialpreconceptions, allowing new realities for book to emerge.

At the outset of the investigation, preliminary data were gathered through theSchool Profile (Appendix 1) information about the history and community ofthe school, enrolment patterns, past events and achievements recent and futurechanges and areas of accomplishment for which the school was nominated.

The main body of data were collected through interview, observation andexamination of documents, and analysed adopting the qualitative approachdescribed by Miles and Huberman (1984:21ff ) incorporating ‘data reduction’,‘data display’ and ‘conclusions: drawing/verifying’. This cyclical, interactiveprocess, is represented in Figure 4 below. The three components ofdata analysis—data collection, data reduction and data display were interwovenin an ongoing data analysis process which operated throughout the life of thebook.

Figure 4: Components of data analysis: Interactive model


32

Data Collection

I adopted semi-structured data collection methods in preparing this book. Thismethod supports the approach that it is both possible and desirable to employ a‘set of valid and verifiable methods for capturing these social relationships andtheir causes’ (Miles and Huberman, 1984:20). I used predesigned interviewquestions with school leaders and a range of staff and members of the schoolcommunity (Appendix 2). The way in which these questions were arrived at, andthe thinking behind them, is illustrated in the following example taken from thesymbolic frame:

• Collaborative leadership = structural+human resource+political+symbolic frames;

• Focus of question: symbolic leadership;• Area for investigation: symbolic elements of collaborative leadership,

and school success;• Elements: beliefs

valuesattitudesnorms of behavioursymbolsritualsceremonies;

• Leader behaviour: to be identified in the book;• School success see p. 41

Elements for each frame (p. 23ff ) were identified from the review of relatedliterature. Questions of specific relevance to each frame have been drawn. Thusthe questions for the symbolic frame became:

• What shared values run through the daily activities of school life?• What do you and other leaders do to preserve and promote those

values—in traditions and symbols of the school, or, informally?• How has this brought about the successes achieved in the school—in

terms of developing a sense of community, or having the collectiveconfidence to manage the challenges faced by urban schools?

• Other? Each set of questions was linked to collaborative leadership and school success.However, the focus changed according to which frame (structural, humanresource, political or symbolic) was being addressed. This clearly delineated thearea of investigation and tied the questions to the nature and purpose of thebook, namely to investigate what leaders do to establish collaborative cultures inschools to bring about school success. The questions which have been drawnfrom the above process elicited:


33

a) responses which tapped into the symbolic elements present in theschool;

b) information about what it was that leaders did in order to promote sucha context;

c) how this has led to school success. It is noted that questions needed modification, not in their content, but in termsof their language, to make them more user-friendly. Note was taken of thelanguage style employed by the subjects and this was accommodated into thequestioning.

All questions were developed using this process, with each of the four framesbeing addressed (see Appendix 2). A limit of three questions per frame was set,totalling twelve questions in all. This allowed subjects to raise additional, relatedfactors which they saw as important and which I may have overlooked.

As well as interviews and open discussion, I examined extracts from documentsand records and made observations. Predesigned questions delineated the area ofbook and kept me and the subjects focused, eliciting information pertinent to thestudy. This was necessary as the context of the book was relatively confined (tothat of collaborative cultures and what leaders do to bring them about). I encouragedopen discussion at the time of interview, during and following the predesignedquestions and in other informal settings, allowing subjects to introduce new facets,not anticipated by me. This proved valuable, as often participants spoke freely anduninhibitedly once the tape recorder was turned off and when they knew theirformal time frame had elapsed. I held eight one-hour, on-site interviews at eachschool in the following sequence: In a preliminary meeting with the principal, andothers invited by the principal, I described in detail the nature of the book andhow I would seek information about the school and its achievements, so that aprofile of the school could be established in readiness for the main interviewing. ASchool Profile Questionnaire (Appendix 1) was distributed to principals at thismeeting to be completed and returned prior to the initial school meetings.Information gathered from the School Profile Questionnaire provided importantadvance background material about the selected schools, such as the nature of theschool’s achievements, a general description of how leadership was exercised in theschool, and its history and community, allowing the valuable face-to-face interviewtime to be spent on investigating pertinent issues relevant to collaborative leadership.It also provided a useful starting point on which to base specific questions for thestructured interview questions.

The first interview at each school was held with the principal. As with otherinterview subjects, I sought a general account of causal linkages between theelements of collaborative leadership and school success. This meeting providedfurther opportunities for identification of other leaders, formal or informal,present in the school community who might give vital input. I also requestedinterviews with a selection of staff not seen formally as leaders, who representedthe view of the ‘teacher-at-large’. The latter provided a balance of views and anindependent source of information.


34

The identified leaders were usually interviewed on a one-to-one basis.However, on three occasions interviews took place in small groups. Overall,forty interviews were undertaken, approximately eight in each of the fiveschools. Interviewees were a mix of teachers, students and parents, all seen asleaders of their school communities.

I held a final meeting, after initial data analysis had been completed, with theprincipal to discuss the key points and close the gaps, and requested furtherdocumentation as appropriate. Observation was interwoven throughout withschool visits and supplemented with verbal and written material.

Data Reduction

Each interview was taped, and with the subject’s approval, transcripts weremade, together with any additional comments made after taping had ceased.Immediately after each interview the key points that emerged were listed (forexample, ‘striving for consensus’, ‘interpersonal openness’, ‘shared beliefs’).Later these elements were classified and categorized into the four frames—structural, human resource, political and symbolic, first subject-by-subject, andthen school-by-school. I noted elements of related leader behaviour andidentified student, teacher and organizational outcomes. Data from the fiveschools were cross referenced and cross-site analysis was undertaken. These datawere revisited many times, being sifted and resifted, classified and reclassified,summarized and resummarized until eventually refined to a distilled form wherethe findings presented themselves accurately and cogently. Figure 4 (p. 31) aboveillustrates the approach. Finally hypothesized causal links were drawn betweenleadership behaviour and school success in terms of student, teacher andorganizational outcomes.

Data Display

I recorded findings in two distinct formats, in each of the four frames. First, inan extended narrative mode using the descriptions gathered from interviews and

Table 1: Number of People Interviewed


35

documentation to exemplify specific outcomes. Second, in a list format whichgave concise findings summarizing:

• the behaviour exhibited by leaders in the schools, that is, what theyactually do to promote, develop and sustain a collaborative culture intheir schools;

• how collaborative leadership has achieved success in the five projectschools;

• hypothesized causal linkages between the findings of each frame andschool success—student, teacher and organizational outcomes.

These two forms of data display complement each other, in that the formerprovides a descriptive, naturalistic account of leaders in action, whereas the latteracknowledges that those interested in the book, including members of theparticipating schools, desire results and recommendations disseminatedeffectively and efficiently, in a form that is succinct and facilitates use; one fromwhich conclusions can be drawn and, importantly, action taken. As Morris, et al.(1987) state ‘give the audience what it needs to know—and no more…presentan evocative report that matches the style of the audience.’ Causal relationships,depicting the precise linkages and interactive pathways between the elements ofcollaboration and the elements of success, supplement the narrative mode of thereport and parallels work by other authors in the leadership domain (seeparticularly Leithwood and Jantzi, 1990; Miles, 1987). The combination ofthese two forms of display offers an organized body of information from whichconclusions can be drawn and, importantly, action taken.

Validity and Reliability

Conclusions were drawn inductively using the process outlined above. Thevalidity and reliability of this conclusion-drawing needs to be established.Consequently, worked through examples of precisely how findings were reachedfrom the primary data, and how causal links were hypothesized from thefindings, have been presented in Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8 where the findings andthe hypothesized causal links of each frame have been reported.

Critics of early qualitative approaches argued that imprecise measurement,weak generalizability of findings, vulnerability to bias, overload of data andextreme labour intensiveness make qualitative methods less than desirable. Overthe last decade, greater sophistication has been devised in naturalisticmethodology (Crowther and Gibson, 1990:40; Miles and Huberman, 1984).Nonetheless, it is important to keep the critics’ concerns to the fore to ensurethat a qualitative book does not veer away from a research project and enterinstead the realms of a good story. ‘The meanings emerging from the data haveto be tested for their plausibility, their sturdiness, their “confirmability”—that istheir validity’ (Miles and Huberman, 1984:22). The conceptual framework used


36

in this book alleviates many of the misgivings held by antagonists of qualitativeresearch and accords such validity. It provides a legitimate means of guiding theresearch design so that data can be satisfactorily organized and analysed,increases the opportunity for significant findings to emerge, simplifies thecomplex task of interpreting results, and assures research is cumulative from onebook to the next. Hocking and Caldwell (1990:7) explain:

It [the conceptual framework] provides a means of focussing and, tosome degree, bounding the collection of data. It facilitates theclarification of research questions and sources of data. The frameworkensures comparability in multi-site case studies and forms the basis forsubsequent data reduction. Finally the conceptual framework providesthe logic for organising the analysis of data. It should be noted, however,that the conceptual framework should not limit the introduction of newelements which may emerge in the course of data collection, norconstrain the interpretation of the significance of, or relationshipbetween, the various elements.

The nature of qualitative analysis leaves it open to subjective bias. Naturalisticinquiry is an intensely personal process and ‘the unknowing author can colour,taint or distort both the process itself and eventual research outcomes throughthe intrusion of personal values, attitudes and biases’ (Crowther and Gibson,1990:41). Personal biases must, therefore, be declared. At this point it isnecessary to acknowledge that my professional position is one that supportscollaboration in school processes and activities. Further the preferred mode ofoperating in a collaborative context is through the symbolic frame. This personalstance has been taken into account during the research process so that thesepredispositions can become a research asset rather than a research liability:

while the subjective role of the author is a critical variable in thequalitative research process, there is no compelling reason to regard it asa problem of consequence. Quite the contrary: once it is realised thatone’s subjectivity can be understood, it becomes obvious that it can bea valuable ally. The potential rewards would seem to be extremelyworthwhile—research that itself is more exciting and meaningful,personal investigative capabilities that are more sensitive and enrichedunderstandings of one’s own values and feelings (Crowther and Gibson,1990:46).

Keeping issues of validity and author subjectivity clearly in mind, a concertedattempt was made to conform to the characteristics of the ideal author (author’semphasis) described by Miles and Huberman (1984:46):

• some familiarity with the phenomenon and the setting under book;• strong conceptual interests;


37

• a multi-disciplinary approach, as opposed to narrow grounding or focusin a single discipline;

• good ‘investigative’ skills, including doggedness, the ability to drawpeople out, and the ability to ward off premature closure.

In this way it was possible to adhere to a clear focus, encourage the emergenceof all relevant information, produce clear, verifiable and replaceable findings,and avoid data overload and undue labour-intensiveness.

Limitations of the Study

This study analysed findings from five urban schools. It is acknowledged thatthese do not represent a sample of outstanding urban schools and that findingscannot be generalized across urban schools per se. The research focused on whatleaders do in schools to create the conditions for the collaborative cultures which,in turn, create success in schools. The intention of the study is to illuminategood practice, in an area not previously addressed, in the five selected schools. Itdoes not lay claim to being representative of other schools in Australia, thoughfindings could be generalized to other similar urban schools in Melbourne. It islikely that a wider study, with carefully chosen samples of urban schools andwhose success is defined more precisely, will furnish findings which can beapplied across urban schools in general.

Reflections on the Methodology

The Qualitative Approach

A qualitative methodological approach proved to be entirely adequate for thisresearch project. In particular the interview component, which though timeconsuming for both interviewer and interviewees, achieved its objective ofproviding rich and insightful information in response to the research questions.The inclusion of open-ended questions, inviting comment on relevant factorswhich did not arise from responses to the predesigned interview questions, washelpful in establishing the complete picture. Interviews reaped a wealth of datawhich may not have been tapped via single questionnaire or survey methods.Taping of the interviews proved invaluable. It allowed for greater personalinteraction with the interview subject during the interviews themselves, freeingme from note-taking and consequent diversion from interpersonal exchange.Visits to schools established a personal connection with those taking part in thebook encouraging expansive responses. A number of interviewees commentedon the strength of the discussion which emanated from the interview process,and its superiority to written responses which in their view are impersonal innature and often completed in haste. School visits provided the opportunity to


38

observe the school at work. Additional documentation, such as policystatements, were useful in supplementing interview responses and providingdetail. The School Profile Questionnaire (Appendix 1) initiated a bank ofinformation about the participating schools prior to the interview process,establishing a large volume of preliminary data as a springboard to the ensuinginvestigation. The combination of interview responses, the School Profile,extracts from school documentation and observation proved to be an effectivedata base from which to draw findings. In my view the validity and the reliabilityof the findings were enhanced as a result of the methodology undertaken andencourages others to adopt its use in any naturalistic inquiry.

The process of data reduction was exhaustive, allowing for constantredefinition of each of the collaborative elements across the four frames until aconvincing accuracy developed. Miles and Huberman’s (1984:23) interactivemodel worked well, capturing the interrelationships and cross connectionsbetween the components of data collection, data reduction, data display andconclusion drawing/verify ing. The model also took account of the ongoingnature of the data analysis process, identifying the realities of the naturalisticresearch context which required repeated classifying and re-classifying of data. Irecommend the use of the Miles and Huberman interactive model for thoseundertaking qualitative research.

Conceptual Issues

The conceptual framework served the needs of the investigation well. Takingtime at the outset to carefully think through and design the conceptualframework in detail paid dividends in terms of its clarity and focus in developingthe research questions. Consequently, the research questions returned responseswith strong conceptual relevance. Extensive reading of the current literature andrelated research was a critical prerequisite to developing the conceptualframework. It was necessary to reach a point of convergence in the literature inorder to move from transformational leadership in general to collaboration inparticular, before any real inroads into the conceptual framework could be made.Of particular influence in this regard was the work of Fullan and Hargreaves(1991b); Leithwood and Jantzi (1990); Nias, Southworth and Yeomans (1989);and Rosenholtz (1989).

The design of the conceptual framework was effective in enabling the book ofleadership behaviour, built up around the elements of collaboration, to beundertaken and to draw connections between collaboration and success. TheBolman and Deal (1991) frames proved helpful, providing a firm foundationfrom which to interpret and analyse the emerging collaborative elements. Thefour categories of structural, human, political and symbolic leadership embracedthe complexity of the leadership milieu so that no blind spots could occur.Bolman and Deal’s typology was highly applicable to the school context.However, I have one small comment to make regarding the symbolic frame. This


39

frame was by far the most difficult to use as a basis for interpretation and analysisof data. Of course, the very nature of the symbolic elements makes this a difficultexercise. However, I found it necessary to draw on the work of Nias, Southworthand Yeomans (1989:11) to extricate a manageable structure for interpretation ofthe primary data within the symbolic frame. This structure was developedaround beliefs, values, attitudes and norms of behaviour; symbols, rituals andceremonies, and was found to be a indispensable additional mini-conceptualframework within the symbolic frame, providing a means to analyse andinterpret the more complex data involved. An interesting observation was thatother elements such as ‘culture-founders’ and ‘culture-bearers’, ‘heroes’ and‘cabals’ espoused in the literature were not directly identified in this book. Anyrelationship of these in the findings was obtuse. Perhaps in the Australian schoolcontext the style of language used to describe such people would seem to beinappropriate and not part of the vernacular; or perhaps in the egalitarian cultureof our society, people who work closely together do not conceive of each otherin those terms. Whatever the case, they did not present in the findings of thisbook.

The intention of the book was to illuminate good practice, in an area notpreviously addressed, in the five selected schools. As discussed earlier, it does notlay claim to being representative of other schools in Australia, though findingscould be generalizable to similar urban schools in Melbourne. However, I takethe view that practitioner reflection on the good practices of the leaders in thesuccessful schools of this investigation could bring insights to bear relevant toleadership in schools in general, and to leadership in urban schools in particular.This is particularly relevant in the stormy times that are facing Victorian schoolsat present. With widespread reorganization of roles and relationships at both theschool and system levels, and variations in government policies and proceduresmade almost on a daily basis, creative leadership is imperative.

The focal issue still remaining to be explored is how the principal and otherleaders in the school operated effectively in their schools? What, specifically wastheir role, and what did they actually do to achieve success? How do they usestructural, human, political and symbolic elements to bring about positivestudent, teacher and organizational outcomes? How did structural, humanresource, political and symbolic perspectives come into play? The researchquestions below were designed to gain answers to these issues.

What is it that leaders do to promote, develop and sustain collaborative culturesin schools?

How does collaborative leadership effect success in these schools?

The research questions were transposed into twelve Interview Questions (seeAppendix 2). The four subsequent chapters give the responses to these questions.Forty-six interviews were held at the five participating schools. Those


40

interviewed included principals, teachers, teacher aides, parents and students(see Table 1). The italicized text is a direct quotation of their replies. Theseexplanations give powerful insights into the specifics of collaborative leadershipas they play out in each of the four frames. Each chapter looks at one frame inturn, beginning with a structural perspective.

41

Chapter 4


Leaders in schools need to focus on structural arrangements if they are totransform their school into one of success. Structures in schools provide themeans by which decisions are made and implemented; where goals are set, whereplanning is designed and carried out, where job descriptions are clarified, whereroles are identified and responsibilities allocated. The structural frame alignswith Sergiovanni’s (1984:6) concept of a ‘technical force of leadership’, whereaccomplishing the administrative tasks of the organization (planning,organizing, coordinating and controlling) are the central focus. Pertinent to thisdiscussion are the external controls placed on Victorian schools directed bygovernment-imposed school reform. In 1985 the Victorian Governmentdeliberately departed from a tradition of centralized policy control, givingincreased responsibilities for educational policies and planning to the schoolsthemselves via their School Councils. Schools were to become ‘self-managing’(Caldwell and Spinks, 1992:4), and ‘to enable the school-based policydevelopment process to be democratic, the legislation [provided] for councilmembership to be shared among the elected representatives of the chief interestgroups namely, parents, teachers and, where appropriate, students’ (Ministry ofEducation, Ministerial Paper Number 4:4.5). Subsequent to the writing of thisbook, further changes have been made in government policy and the abovearrangements have been revised.

All the participating schools in this investigation functioned at the timethrough the formal structure of the overriding statutory body, the SchoolCouncil, which took full responsibility for formulating policy, participating inthe selection of the Principal and Deputy Principal, oversight of buildings andgrounds, financial management and parent and community relations. Otherformal bodies in the schools included the Administrative Committee,Curriculum Committees, the Students’ Representative Council and various sub-committees such as Equal Opportunity and Parental Involvement. Participatingschools managed their school planning, policy-making and organization viathese bodies. Boronia West High School, as a small school, rarely workedthrough sub-committees in its decision-making processes, but operated as awhole staff in conjunction with its School Council and the Students’Representative Council. However, the process in all schools, directed byMinistry of Education guidelines, was that all school policy and overridingmanagement issues recommended by teachers, students or parents went to


42

School Council for consideration. Only when ratified by School Council couldrecommendations be adopted. It is against this background that collaborationbetween the various members of the school community took place.

Understandings gained from the related theory and research demonstrate thatstructural perspectives in a collaborative culture are inclusive of the followingelements:

• democratic processes• leadership density• direction/vision• shared goals• shared responsibility• roles• coordination/planning• respect and valuing of all• listening• frank, open and frequent communication

Keeping these elements clearly in mind, three of the twelve interview questions(Appendix 2) were directed at gaining insight into the way in which structuralarrangements were organized in the schools, and how leaders1 achieved successthrough these. The questions for the structural frame were:

• How is the school organized to allow shared decision-making andshared responsibility?

• What is it that you and other leaders actively do to promote thesearrangements?

• How does this contribute to your school’s success, for instance, in termsof more effective planning and coordination or clearer description of roles?

• Other? These interview questions were developed from the conceptual framework(Chapter 3) to elicit specific data about the structural elements of collaborativeleadership and how it brings about success in the five Melbourne urban schoolsunder study.

Leadership and the Structural Frame

The overriding feature of leader behaviour in the participating schools was thestrong commitment to, and belief in, the participatory democratic decisionmakingprocess. Officially the democratic structure was imposed by Ministry of Educationdirectives outlined above, and its application in practice by leaders in these schoolstook on larger than life proportions and a vigilance to its principles which went farbeyond routine procedures. ‘Democracy matters’, were the words of the Staff


43

Development Coordinator at Clematis Secondary. Consultation and representationwere the keystones of their operation, reflecting a valuing of others in the broadschool community of staff, parents and students. This attitude seemed in turn tohave the effect of bringing about reciprocal respect, support and a desire to give anactive commitment to the organization from the whole school community. Itappears that an atmosphere of respect and valuing of all members of the schoolcommunity is generated when there is genuine professional regard for the abilitiesand input of those in leadership positions, be it the principal, teachers, parents orstudents. Age and experience are not necessarily contributing factors. Leaders tookaction to put procedures into place which ensured all people in their school weregiven openings to fully participate in the decision-making processes. This actioncentres around what Sergiovanni (1987:122) refers to as leadership density’ where‘leadership roles are shared’ and in which leadership is broadly exercised’ amongsta broad range of teachers, whether senior or not, ancillary staff such as multiculturalaides, students and parents.

At Cassinia Secondary College, ‘Anyone who wants to can be part of any group,but people feel more like participating if they have a formal role’, commented onestaff member. Seniority does not dictate the allocation of roles and responsibilitiesin most of the participating schools. At Clematis Secondary all jobs, except thoseof the principal and deputy principal, are open to everyone, and everyone isencouraged to apply (associated with this is the expectation that people do nothold on to the one position for an extended time giving as many people as possiblethe chance to be involved). Some positions are appointed (principal and deputyprincipal), some are elected (faculties vote for their coordinators); for others, apriority list of available positions is displayed and any teacher is able to indicate aninterest. If there is more than one applicant for the position then the AdministrativeCommittee conducts interviews and selects the best candidate for the job. Monetaryallowances, normally allocated to senior positions of responsibility, are granted inorder of prioritized positions producing good people doing the job. A senior memberof staff at Clematis Secondary commended this approach:

In the old style administration people of talent and ability were being passedover…and people started to say ‘let’s do it [the selection of senior positions]another way’…people were very anguished over the idea that senior teachersand principals shouldn’t have powers by right; that they should earn thosepowers and exercize those powers in the name of the people that they wereworking with.

As far as the day-to-day running of the school is concerned the present principalof Clematis Secondary believes it is ‘one of the most deeply democratically runschools that exist.’ Democratic procedures have been in existence since 1978.Since that time staff have had a significant say in whole school planning, as thestaff development officer notes:

The nerve centre of the school is the staff meeting held once a week …it is


44

recognized as the decision-making body of the school. This [democraticprocess] makes the chain of command very clear, so that if you want to knowsomething, you know who to go to, and if you think something is not beingdone right or there’s a problem, there’s a very clear and commonly acceptedway of bringing it to the surface and finding out what’s wrong and fixingit, which doesn’t in any sense depend on personalities.

This approach leads to strong communication and clear structural processes foroperational procedures. In addition, people at any level are empowered to makechange.

The deputy principal at Clematis Secondary elaborates:

People know where the decisions will be made. They know, if something’shappening that they don’t like, where to go and to do something about it.People do feel that sort of ownership of the decisions—they mightn’t like itbut they do know that if you want to have a say then the price you pay forthat, is that things are going to be decided that you might not like. It’s atwo-way street in that respect. That structure is very clear and it works well.

Ultimately principals do have the right of veto, but in most cases its use was rareand was justified to staff. It is significant to note that overuse of the power ofveto caused staff frustration, was counterproductive and an obstacle to success.

The importance to staff having a significant say in the organization of theschool, and in their professional lives, is expressed by the student welfare teacherat Clematis Secondary:

In previous schools I was at, where places were run along very authoritarianlines with power structures lying in the hands of the principal and thedeputy principal and one or two senior teachers, I was constantly in conflict.This hasn’t been the case here and it’s because of the fact that the structureset-up means that the people who you are responsible to here, given theguidelines given by the Education Department and the School Council rolein the power structure in the school, are your peers. Now based on that, ifI get a rejection on an idea or something that I put forward, I’ve got nofallback. It’s been rejected by my peers. I think that’s who should judge anddetermine whether ideas for the school on a whole range of areas, not justcurriculum, should be based. Therefore I think the structures that are set uphere are excellent in that way.

Interconnections with the political frame are strong here. The democraticprocess means empowerment of others to make crucial decisions within theschool. Leaders need to have trust and confidence in the process for it to workeffectively.

Strongly correlated to the above is the active instigation by school leaders ofdemocratic processes at the meeting level. Democratic procedures such as open


45

meetings, rotating the Chair and minute-taking at meetings, and having an openagenda extend leadership opportunities and share responsibility across the staffand school community. Published outcomes of policies and minutes of meetingsgive everyone the opportunity to keep in touch with what is happening,particularly in large schools where it is physically impossible for all staff to attendall meetings. Having this information is seen as critical:

Information is the most important thing and information at this school isavailable to everybody. At every meeting that takes place minutes are takenand stored publicly. Everybody’s timetable, everyone’s allotment, is displayedon the noticeboards for everyone to read. There are no sweetheart deals,nobody can say this person’s getting favours that we don’t know about,because it’s all public. Nobody gets any favours or expects them. It’sextremely important that people don’t feel there are any special deals forpeople on the basis of friendship or seniority; and it’s also important so thatpeople understand the methods that are used to administrate the place. Ifpeople want to make changes that sort of information is essential becauseyou can’t propose a change unless you know how the current system isoperating (Daily Organizer, Clematis Secondary College).

It seems that if democratic structures are in place and fair and equitablemechanisms are employed to reach decisions, people are able to accept andcooperate with those decisions even if they run counter to their particularpreference.

In some schools formal meeting procedures are the routine practice and staffhave required support to feel conversant or confident in dealing with theformalities, such as procedural motions/referral/gag/points of order. Leadershave put strategies into place where whole staff groups have broken up into smallgroups to encourage those who may be intimidated by the formalities and/or theexperienced players of the large group, to feel comfortable in taking an activepart. A secondary teacher reflects:

People need confidence and experience to work in the political system; insmaller groups they are more likely to have a say…teachers are reluctant tostand up and have a say…funny for teachers isn’t it?

Lack of confidence in coping with formal meeting procedures may not be theonly obstacle to the successful implementation of democratic processes inschools. To return to Little’s (1982a) significant finding, collaboration in schoolsis a rare occurrence, even though mandated at a government level here inVictoria. Earth (1990:129) suggests that reasons of self-interest may play a partin why this is so:

When others are making the decisions, teachers can resist, lobby, holdout, attempt to influence a situation to their own advantage. When


46

teachers work for the common good, they give up a large measure ofself-interest in the outcome. With leadership and responsibility comesthe need to see others’ points of view and act fairly in their eyes. Manyteachers are not willing to make this trade.

As well as setting up formal democratic procedures leaders in the project schoolsinitiated strategies to facilitate a welcoming and supportive atmosphere forparents. A parent representative of one School Council commented:

As a parent I see the organization in the sense that it is an open school, thatwe are welcome at any time…you don’t feel that if there is a problem youcan’t go in…so there’s an openness, there’s a sense of belonging that’s builtup that this is our school, this is our community.

Some teachers endorse the Ministry’s view of seeing parent participation as aphilosophical necessity:

With the whole change of philosophy of education, that parents realize nowthat they have a right to be involved. When I first started teaching in theearly 70s it was the reverse really, parents were really just struggling to getinvolved. I think with that son of revolution, that responsibility has comewith it and parents want to follow it through. I think teachers now realize,some more reluctantly than others, the benefits of sharing that educationalresponsibility. There are incredible benefits—the whole resource area ofvaried people, and (speaking as a parent myself ) I know that I have got alot to offer. Many parents can add through their involvement and maketheir children feel more comfortable—it’s not just a sharp division betweenhome and school. If we’re talking about integrated education then thereshould never be a division, it should all just merge. I am very much againstthat very structured, closed view of institutionalized education… Theprincipal is a strong advocate. It’s clearly through all our policy statementsthat parents are invited to contribute and be involved.

Other teachers are not so sure. A dilemma can present itself for staff, forinstance, in terms of implementation of curriculum policy which has beendecided at the School Council level and with which teachers may not necessarilyagree. Given the scenario where parents can have a very influential say, andthrough strength of personality, dominate the decision-making process, staff canfeel very threatened, as one young primary teacher in this study asserts:

These people [ill-informed parents] are on my Council! These peopleare making decisions as to when I have my curriculum meetings, as to whenI have my reports and what is to be part of my curriculum; these arethe people who are ratifying my policy about how I should teachmathematics!


47

One view of addressing this is expressed below in the Sanderson High School’sCase Book in Effective Schooling (1988:14). Sanderson High is a secondaryschool located in the Northern Territory of Australia:

While increasing the level of parent and student input is activelyencouraged, the main focus in decision-making at Sanderson HighSchool continues to be the role of the teacher. Decision-making atSanderson is designed to develop ownership of policy by those who areexpected to implement it, namely the staff.

Employing inclusive strategies such as a round table arrangement, keepingmeetings short and avoiding technical language encouraged greater parentparticipation in meetings at Banksia Primary. The President of the SchoolCouncil elaborates:

We’ve worked it so that we have changed from a formal structure to a roundtable format in the last two or three years. We still go through a formalagenda; the underlying thing at a School Council meeting would be to getthrough the agenda on time. We also have another structure where ifanybody talks about anything like LOTE or uses a technical term withoutexplaining it, they have to put 20¢ in the middle because we discovered thatthe use of technical language was daunting to parents. You could sit throughmeetings for the first twelve months and while you would understand, youwould not understand the implications because all this Ministry jargon wasbeing used. So to make the language and the reporting in such a way thateverybody was included, we don’t talk about etcetera without explaining.

Nonetheless one of the obstacles faced by some urban schools is the difficulty ofdrawing more than a handful of parents into active involvement in decision-makingdespite their constitutional inclusion as legitimate members of policy groups inthe school, and its accompanying power to participate in discussion and decisionson school aims and goals, policies (including curriculum), the budget and programevaluation. Factors attributed to nonparticipation include language difficultieswith English as the second language for a majority of parents, a perceived fear ofschools and a lack of understanding of educational activities based on their pastexperience (many parents have experienced primary education only), culturaldifferences about the role of parents and the constraints associated with two workingparents or parents working night-shifts. Obviously representation is severely limitedin these schools and, as a result, the teaching staff tends to dominate thepolicymaking. Despite this, some creative efforts have been initiated in an attemptto redress this situation. Kennedia Primary has capitalized on its school community’spassion for food. The School Principal explains:

Last year we had about 130 parents up for our AGM, which isunbelievable, because at all our community involvement things we


48

encourage food. We ask parents to bring a plate [of food]. It seems toencourage them a lot. Just to come up and hear the Head speak—we wouldget nobody. But with food!…and we’ve got our six ethnic teacher aides whowill be there in attendance to interpret. Parents will support the school inthings where they don’t seem threatened, for instance, school concerts (theTown Hall was chockers—upstairs, downstairs, everywhere; they willsupport it no end), working bees, a multicultural night, even informationnights—we have two a year on different curriculum areas. We get a hugeturn up at that again, but, there’s food involved each time.

Opportunities are offered for leadership across a broad spectrum of peoplewithin the school communities. Ethnic teacher aides play a vital role in thisrespect. Teacher aides in urban schools are critical to parent involvement as theyprovide the essential link between the school and the parent of non-Englishspeaking families. At Kennedia Primary where, at last census only nine childrenin the school spoke English at home, teacher aides play a significant leadershiprole, actively encouraged by the principal and the School Council President.There is one program aide and five ethnic aides for Arabic, Vietnamese, Turkish,Portuguese and Greek. They work in classrooms alongside teachers, theyorganize drop-in times in the community room, talk with parents, communicateby telephone if the need arises, undertake home visits, act as parent liaison,attend school functions such as curriculum meetings, where they translate andinterpret curriculum issues, and assist in translating all documentation so it canbe understood by all. As well as translation and interpreting, the teacher aidesplay an important social role in making all groups feel welcome and at home,bringing everyone together and building a sense of school community. Amulticultural aide at Kennedia Primary School explains: ‘The social aspect isparamount. People who aren’t comfortable with English don’t want to sit and listento a formal report-style meeting. We bring a plate of food, socialize and then casuallyget the message across.’

Urban school leaders are also aware of the need to be attuned to the culturalpolitics of the ethnic groups in their school. It is imperative to success, forexample, to select a suitable ethnic teacher aide. At Kennedia Primary, whereparents are Christian Arabic, a Christian Arabic, not a Muslim Arabic, aide isessential. Clearly a cultural match is necessary. At Grevillea Primary School thereverse is necessary—a Muslim Arabic parent group demands a Muslim Arabicteacher aide. In addition, there is often a mix of cultures, and together with thetransience of the parent populations, an astute principal is constantlymonitoring any changes and planning for appropriate ethnic aide staffing as theneed arises.

Whatever the approach, concerted attempts by leaders to include parents inthe decisionmaking process appear to be essential if success is to be achieved.Susan Moore Johnson (1990:336) in her book on the American teacher’sworkplace strongly recommends that ‘public schools must engage parents more


49

meaningfully in the education of their children and coordinate public services onbehalf of children and their families.’

Leaders take conscious steps to ensure that a breadth of leadershipopportunities are offered to a range of people across the school communitydeveloping an understanding of the complexities of managing a school andbringing a democratic approach to the selection of positions of responsibility inthe school. At Kennedia Primary the Principal commented:

Everyone, regardless if they’re straight out of college, has extraresponsibilities; it helps them to grow professionally because it makes themdevelop other skills. My job is to be able to judge a person and to give thema responsibility that they can do well.

This approach mirrors Earth’s (1990:128) comment:

When teachers are enlisted and empowered as school leaders, everyonecan win. Other teachers’ concerns are frequently better understood byone of their fellows than by someone who performs a different job.Important schoolwide issues receive more care and attention when theadult is responsible for few other major areas. And the principal wins byrecognizing that there is plenty of leadership to go round. If theprincipal tries to do all of it, much of it will be left undone by anyone.Leadership is not a zero-sum game in which some person gets some onlywhen another loses some. In fact, the principal gains influence anddemonstrates leadership by entrusting some of it to others. Beingaccorded leadership generates new leadership.

Undoubtedly there are strong connections here with the human resource framewith its focus on professional and personal needs and satisfaction. Effectiveleaders see the connections between leadership opportunity and professionaldevelopment where, leadership density leads to professional development in abroad-ranging group of staff:

If someone’s got the ability and a real desire to get up and take a programon, you don’t want to say ‘sorry you can’t do it because senior people havethat responsibility’, so we try and weigh it up so that senior teachers arecarrying their expected loads (because they’ve got the expertise hopefully),but if there is someone from within the school who has that expertise weopen up those possibilities for them. Often, say, if there’s an acting positionof responsibility within the school, what we do is advertise the requirementsand anybody in the school who feels they have something to bring to thatposition can apply. So it’s not just on seniority… We have our criteria forselection and one of them, which I think is good, is that a professionaldevelopment component is built in. That way we can rotate positionsbecause part of someone’s professional development is that they take on


50

responsibility. Sometimes you can get locked into the position where, becauseyou ‘re senior, or because you’ve had that job for x-amount of years, it’sconsidered yours. There’s a sense of ownership. This way we can break outof that ownership criteria and go on the needs of the school and on theprofessional growth of the applicants (senior teacher, Banksia PrimarySchool).

Leaders in the project schools have a commitment to this belief and are preparedto accommodate the lengthier and more difficult process that is required whendemarcation of roles is not clear and applicants’ needs are taken intoconsideration. Leaders are wrestling with the practical application of the notionof leadership density. No one doubts its wisdom, but juggling all its associateddemands is no easy task—rationality and structure are intertwined with equity,and the joint valuing of both experience and youth. However, it is clear thatdemocratic procedures in school decision-making, open meetings, access toinformation and an open door policy to all members of the school community,contribute to school success.

Collaborative Leadership and School Success—StructuralFrame

A significant belief for leaders in the project schools is the primary purpose thesedemocratic processes serve. As a social justice issue democracy holds much sway,but, importantly, the overriding intention of participatory decisionmaking wasto ensure that educational programs of the school met the needs of its studentsand, as a result, the educational agenda was advanced. So it was a compellingsense of direction for the school’s fundamental mission, which was driving thedaily work of all those in the school, with a sharp focus on learning and teachingand the needs of the students in their care. The democratic processes weredeveloped to expedite this purpose. Leaders in successful schools were able todevelop a school climate which directly focused on the centrality of teaching andlearning using the structural arrangements of the school to support and enhanceindividual student achievement. In the 1990 School Council Annual Report,Banksia Primary School, makes this clear in its opening words:

Banksia Primary is deeply committed to identifying and responding tothe educational needs of its students and the community it serves. Itdoes this by maintaining an open-door policy, and encouraging andnurturing all avenues of communication, formal and informal.

This includes making the formal structures and processes work for studentswithin the context of government policy as is illustrated in the curriculumsection of the Banksia Primary 1990 Annual Report:


51

Through the 1989 school development plan, school policies weredeveloped in the following areas: Language, Mathematics, PupilWelfare, Computer Studies, Integration and Communication…Theseprojects translate directly into the successful classroom programs thatcombine to form the basis of a very successful year for the students inour care.

In its response to the School Profile (Appendix 1) Banksia Primary Schoolreported its school success as centred around the introduction to new approachesin the organization and support of learning and teaching, citing ‘great policies,open decision-making, promotion of people who are doing well, andinvolvement in the local community’ as inclusive of its achievements.

At Boronia West High School, in addition to a weekly administrativemeeting, all teachers meet together once a fortnight to discuss students’ social,emotional or academic needs. Meeting as one group keeps all staff informed ofany special needs of a particular student and assists them in working together asa combined front in addressing them. As a result, ‘we all know about all studentsin the school, the coordinator explains. Student-focused staff meetings highlightindividual needs of students, leading to innovative curriculum and thedevelopment of student learning. A former student of Boronia West High, andnow a replacement teacher, comments:

To be a successful teacher in this school you have to have the respect of thekids… Definitely, if kids don’t put their best foot forward, they’re letting theside down, and the teachers who they respect and look up to… Kids respectthe teachers here—very much so.

The opportunity to confront philosophical issues was also provided by thesemeetings. Leaders who actively linked meetings to a student focus clearlybrought direct benefits to children both in terms of a relevant curriculumcatering to individual needs and in terms of individualized student pastoral carewhich encouraged positive student attitudes both to their learning and in theirrelationships with others. School success at Boronia West High hinged on theseleadership strategies. This school was nominated on the basis of sustainedachievement over many years and continued success in the introduction of newapproaches to teaching and learning.

A Year 12 student at Boronia West High comments on the teaching andlearning approach. ‘It helps you to find out who you are as an individual …Students take responsibility for themselves in their self-development and theirlearning…staff are there to assist, not to control. ‘Traditional secondary teachingmethodologies do not suit the students at Boronia West High, as one Year 12 girlexplains:

Because the classes are so small you can have really, really good classdiscussions which are often better than just a whole period of copying down


52

what the teacher says. We’ve never done that before. We’ve never actuallycome into a class, sat down, and for the whole period copied down what theteacher’s writing on the board. And the first time that happened to me waswhen I went to [school x]—biology. And the teacher for the whole classhardly said a word to us and just wrote and wrote and wrote, and we Justcopied, copied, copied. None of it sunk in—you’re too busy, copying,watching the board…trying to keep up with him [the teacher]. Then hesays, ‘go through your notes again at home.’

Cassinia Secondary College transformed several existing school programmes,particularly at the Years 7 to 10 levels, to better serve the demands of itsmulticultural, non-English speaking, adolescent clientele; acknowledging theneed to target individual differences in student learning and offer greater subjectchoice. These programs have been developed in response to the needs of studentsin an urban context. Certainly it has taken the combined efforts of staff,coordinated through shared decision-making, that has enabled thesedevelopments to take place. Children benefit directly in ways that thecurriculum coordinator at Cassinia Secondary College points out. ‘There is morechoice, which makes learning more interesting. The free market [approach] provideshealthy competition. The more attractive the subjects, the more students will selectthem.’

Clematis Secondary College showed an adeptness and expertise in usingparticipatory decision making structures as a dependable means of reachinginsightful resolutions to the demanding educational issues which perpetuallyarose. As a combined staff with a single-minded purpose, (and jointly sharingthe responsibility for the achievement of that purpose). The principal ofClematis Secondary considers the matter of elective subjects and sees them as,‘a reflection of the democratic processes, in that students, with their family, have agreater say in what their program will be…not—in Year 7 do this! They have a bigsay in what they want to do.’ It appears there are clear connections between thestructural arrangements of this school, and the school’s success. ‘The structureassists people to feel comfortable in their commitment here.’ (principal, ClematisSecondary)

Kennedia Primary School attributes its success to the way in which all staffwork cooperatively together through school structures and processes to developand extend the educational environment of its students. Diversity in the studentclientele abounds, both in terms of cultural background and socioeconomicneed. Staff have to be fully on task, jointly communicating, problemsolving, andputting students first and foremost at all times, to really make a difference to theeducational present, and future, of their young students. This is achieved by anunerring commitment to democratic decision making and inclusiveness of thewhole school community.

A long-serving staff member at Kennedia Primary, currently the Year 5/6 classteacher, comments on the success of the school in achieving harmony in a diverse


53

school community with the aid of democratic decision-making. ‘It’s the happieststaff I’ve worked with. The processes have been followed and things have beendiscussed. Hierarchy doesn’t exist. Pulling rank doesn’t exist. The president of theSchool Council at Kennedia Primary believes, ‘There is a greater collectiveknowledge and community involvement at the school, which is good considering the43% transiency [of students].’ Success has been achieved in drawing themulticultural groups together.

The structures in place in the schools contribute significantly to schoolsuccess. Leaders in the project schools facilitated school success through carefulorganization of their school’s management structures. This approach isconsistent with Beare, Caldwell and Millikan’s (1989:112) examination ofleadership studies which ‘demonstrate that outstanding schools provide strongsupport for school-based management and collaborative decision-makingwithin a framework of state and local policies.’ They are also indicative ofcollaborative planning and collegial relationships described by Purkey andSmith (1985:358) where ‘the staff of each school is given a considerable amountof responsibility and authority in determining the exact means by which theyaddress the problem of increasing academic performance.’ Success for theschools in this project has been strengthened by the structural dimension ofcollaborative leadership.

Development of Findings

Findings were drawn from the whole body of data gathered from each of theforty-six interviewees, school documentation and observation. One school at atime was researched and, after an initial interview with the school principal,interviews were arranged to suit the school program. All subjects were asked thesame questions, though the opportunity was given to talk freely around thequestions in an extended sense, allowing the depth of complexities surroundingthe topic to emerge. Each interview was taped, with one exception at thesubject’s request, and later transcribed in detail. Each transcript of each of thesubjects’ responses was analysed through the four frames by categorizing theinterview responses into the structural, human resource, political and symbolicelements. Using Miles and Huberman’s (1984) interactive model, findings fromeach frame were then generalized across each of the subjects from a particularschool, for example, Banksia Primary School, then crossreferenced and analysedacross the five participating schools. These data were revisited many times, beingclassified and reclassified until eventually the findings were refined to thedistilled form presented below. Figure 4 (p. 31) illustrates the approach. Whatfollows first however, are two worked-through examples of the way in whichprimary data were transposed into the succinct findings listed below. Theseexamples come from the structural frame. Each finding was developed via thesame process. This chapter reports the findings of the structural frame.


54

Example 1

Primary data

Extract from 1990 School Council Annual Report—Banksia Primary School:

Banksia Primary is deeply committed to identifying and responding to theeducational needs of its students and the community it serves. It does this bymaintaining an open-door policy and encouraging and nurturing allavenues of communication, formal and informal.

Interview response from staff development officer at Clematis SecondaryCollege:

The nerve centre of the school is the staff meeting held once a week…it isrecognized as the decision-making body of the school. This [democraticprocess] makes the chain of command very clear, so that if you want to knowsomething, you know who to go to, and if you think something is not beingdone right or there’s a problem, there’s a very clear and commonly acceptedway of bringing it to the surface and finding out what’s wrong and fixingit, which doesn’t in any sense depend on personalities.

Interview response from the deputy principal at Cassinia Secondary College:

every second Wednesday we meet to discuss areas of concern in workinggroups. It’s an action process. We identify common areas of concern andcommon action.

The above primary data leads to the finding

Leaders in the project schools provide clearly communicated mechanisms/structures based on democratic principles for whole school planning.

Example 2

Primary data Interview response from a senior staff member at Clematis Secondary College:

In the old style administration people of talent and ability were being passedover…and people started to say ‘let’s do it [the selection of senior positions]another way’…people were very anguished over the idea that senior teachersand principals shouldn’t have powers by right; that they should earn thosepowers and exercise those powers in the name of the people that they wereworking with.


55

Interview response from preparatory teacher at Banksia Primary School:

With the whole change of philosophy of education, parents realise now thatthey have a right to be involved. When I first started teaching in the early70s it was the reverse really. Parents were really just struggling to getinvolved. I think with that sort of revolution, that responsibility has comewith it and parents want to follow it through. I think teachers now realize,some more reluctantly than others, the benefits of sharing that educationalresponsibility. There are incredible benefits—the whole resource area ofvaried people, and (speaking as a parent myself ) I know that I have got alot to offer. Many parents can add through their involvement and maketheir children feel more comfortable—it’s not just a sharp division betweenhome and school. If we’re talking about integrated education then thereshould never be a division, it should all just merge. I am very much againstthat very structured, closed view of institutionalized education…Theprincipal is a strong advocate. It’s clearly through all our policy statementsthat parents are invited to contribute and be involved.

Interview response from a Year 12 student at Boronia West High School:

This school is running because of us and we have to have a say in what’sgoing on. It makes for less tension…you can do something about things;people listen to your point of view.

The above primary data leads to the finding

Collaborative leaders support a participatory democratic process for selectionof positions of responsibility which are shared across the staff, parents andstudents of the school

The preceding narrative reflects the pattern of responses which repeatedlyemerged from the interviewees. Comments were unprompted and immediate,expressed with clarity and coherence. The consistency of responses over thenearly 40 hours of interviews leads to a certainty and confirmation of thefollowing generalized findings.

Findings of the Structural Frame

What is it that leaders do to promote, develop and sustain collaborative cultures inurban schools?

Leaders in the project schools of this investigation facilitate:

• a school climate which directly focuses on the centrality of teaching andlearning and can use the structural arrangements of the school tosupport and enhance individual student achievement;


56

• an open-door policy which invites and promotes all people to showexpressions interest in school decision-making;

• a participatory democratic process for selection of positions of responsibilitywhich are shared across the staff, parents and students of the school;

• clearly communicated mechanisms/structures, based on democraticprinciples, for whole school planning;

• democratic processes at the meeting level, ie., rotation of Chair andminute-taking;

• freely shared information to the whole school community;• opportunities for all to take an active part in the formal processes of the

school.

Characterized by:

• a central focus of using school structures to address and to supportstudents’ learning;

• commitment, belief and trust in the democratic process;• the knowledge that decisions have been arrived at in a fair and equitable

way;• openness and a sense of belonging;• respect and valuing of all members of the school community;• a secure and relaxed atmosphere;• an absence of structural hierarchy and autocratic decision-making;• representation of all sectors of the school community;• responsibility not purely linked to seniority;• avoidance of ownership of positions of responsibility;• encouragement of others to take on positions of responsibility,

accompanied by strong informal and formal support;• initiation of change from staff, student or parent-base rather than

principal/executive administration.


It brings about:

• clear communication and guidelines;• sound, effective and well-understood decisions;• efficient operating of the school through effective planning;• trust and confidence in the decision-making process;• a sense of empowerment;• a strongly committed staff;• high teacher morale;• high level of teacher involvement;• a cohesive, supportive staff;• maximum opportunities for input of staff, student and parent talent/

skills; broad-ranging professional development;


57

• a shared workload;• more harmonious relationships—staff/staff, staff/student, student/

student, staff/parent.

Summary and Conclusion

The structural frame emphasizes the importance of formal roles andrelationships. The focus is on organizational direction and goals, roles, policies,procedures, and coordination and planning. In a collaborative environmentthere is a breadth of leadership, an absence of hierarchy and the opportunity forall school community members to contribute to and influence thedecisionmaking of the school. Above all, elements of structural leadership suchas democratic processes, leadership density, shared goals, shared responsibility,coordination/planning, frank and frequent communication, are aninstitutionalized part of the day-to-day operations of the school. Structures mustserve processes which are seen to be equitable and fair. Leaders in the schoolsstudied have made a shift away from hierarchically-ordered organizationalmanagement to a leadership with an emphasis on democratic procedures whichare inclusive rather than exclusive, seeing the operation of the school as acollective responsibility of staff, parents and, where appropriate, students.Leaders who establish a collaborative culture through the perceptivemanagement of the structural arrangements of their school play a significant partin contributing to their school’s success.

Note

1 In reference to the usage of the term ‘leader’ it must be noted that all interview subjectsquoted in this book, whatever their title (for example, class teachers, faculty heads,integration teacher) are defined as ‘leaders’.

58

Chapter 5


The human resource perspective delineated in this book is built around the viewthat organizations are populated by individuals who have needs, feelings andprejudices. The particular emphasis of this book is one of professional needs,feelings and prejudices, combining what Sergiovanni (1984:6) would termhuman and educational perspectives. Human factors including consideration ofrelationships among people in the school, morale and empowerment,instructional leadership, developing and evaluating curriculum, and professionaldevelopment. All these take into account the urgency for collaboration, ratherthan isolation in leadership, as discussed in Chapter 2.

Chapter 4 addressed the issue of what it is that leaders do, through thestructural frame, in urban schools to develop a collaborative culture and toachieve success for students. This chapter looks at the same issues but insteadwith a human resource focus. Collaborative elements associated with effectivehuman resource leadership are used as a base for analysing responses from theforty or so interviewees in the five urban schools participating in this project.The human resource elements are as follows:

• centrality of teaching and learning;• strong sense of community;• value and regard for professional development;• teachers as curriculum leaders;• parents as co-partners;• teams;• teachers teaching teachers;• professional honesty and openness;• support, praise and trust;• acceptance;• sharing;• continuous learning;• continuous improvement;• positive student/staff relations;• staff cohesion.

Specific interview questions were designed to elicit insights from the humanresource frame as to exactly what leaders1 did in their schools to develop a


59

collaborative culture. They were three of a series presented to encompass the fullrange of leadership behaviour across the four frames (see Appendix 2). Questionswere as follows:

• In what ways do staff and others support and cooperate with eachother—in their teaching practice, or personally?

• What do you and other leaders do to foster such cooperation andsupport—formally and informally?

• How has this influenced school successes, say, in professionaldevelopment, or curriculum innovation?

• Other?

Leadership and the Human Resource Frame

The human resource frame is built on the fundamental premise that theindividual talents, skill and energy of the people in an organization are its mostvital resource. There is a constant interplay between the individual and theorganization to ensure a fit between administrative goals and goals of individualmembers. The human resource frame here is focusing on the social aspect ofhuman behaviour where ‘man is essentially [seen as] a social animal and gains hisbasic sense of identity from relationships with others’ (Handy, 1985:32). Iforganizations are alienating in their operation, valuable human talents are lostand human lives become malnourished (Deal, 1990). Effective leadershipacknowledges the fact that people and organizations need each other.Organizations need professional experience, ideas and commitment; peopleneed satisfying work, an income, and social and personal expression. As onereflective primary teacher at Kennedia Primary School notes, ‘People with a needto express themselves in the organization are kept happy—that has a positive effect onthe organization; people’s needs are met, they’re happier in their workplace and thataffects their teaching.’ Good leadership is sensitive to this interdependence,arranging structures and conditions to meet the professional and personal needsof staff. Clark and Meloy (1989:273) describe what it is that teachers need, incontrast to what the school may see as their needs ‘[Teachers] need to tap intoeach one’s truest, unique self; to reach so that he or she has a chance to succeed;to become what every person desires to become—an effective, recognized,rewarded individual in the work setting.’

Active encouragement of all staff to express their professional individualitywas imparted by leaders in the schools. ‘We believe in what we’re doing’, were thestrong words of the technology coordinator at Cassinia Secondary College. Thestaff development officer at Clematis Secondary reports, ‘Wherever we can, we tryand run the school in a way that makes the best use of the talent in the school.’ Kotter(1990:6) refers to developing a human network for achieving goals by ‘aligningpeople—communicating the direction by words and deeds to all those whosecooperation may be needed so as to influence the creation of teams and


60

coalitions that understand the vision and the strategies and accept their validity.’A replacement teacher at Boronia West High School, in his first year of practice,commented on the cooperation between his colleagues, ‘Teachers get together andsee how kids are going; there’s always communication between teachers—alwaysnutting it out and talking about it.’ Kotter and Bolman and Deal’s words reflectthe facilitating role of leaders in the participating schools who acted on a deep-seated belief in the intrinsic value of each member of staff. This belief facilitatedeffectiveness in their organizations. The attitudes and actions of leaders in anorganization have a direct correlation to school effectiveness, as Fullan (1988:45)points out, ‘Organizations do not get healthy by themselves, and we all would beextremely lucky if our organization got healthy through someone else’s effortsother than our own. Managing in a non-rational world means counting onourselves.’

Like Fullan, Rosenholtz (1989:44) also concludes that ‘norms ofcollaboration don’t simply just happen. They do not spring spontaneously out ofteachers’ mutual respect and concern for each other’. Fullan and Rosenholtz’sconviction is confirmed in the findings of this book. What leaders in schoolsactually do—their behaviour, their actions, their priorities in the daily choices ofadministrative practice—are all critical to the development of a collaborativeculture. One of the guiding attitudes of leaders in the schools in this book wasthe strict focus on learning and teaching as the primary and overriding role of theschool. ‘I think it’s important to question everything you’re doing if it doesn’t seemto be working for every child’, the coordinator at Boronia West High Schoolcommented. A leadership focus on the centrality of teaching and learning seemscritical to bringing about a stimulating professional atmosphere and increasedteacher skills.

Teaching and learning is central to the culture of a fully functioningcollaborative school culture. Little (1982:259) refers to a ‘technical culture’. Herresearch demonstrated that in exceptionally effective schools:

• Teachers engage in frequent, continuous and increasingly concrete andprecise talk about teaching practices;

• Teachers are frequently observed and provided with useful critiques (ifpotentially frightening) of their teaching;

• Teachers plan, design, research, evaluate and prepare teaching materialstogether;

• Teachers teach each other the practice of teaching. Little’s technical culture characterizes the cultures in most of the urban schoolsdiscussed in this book. Teaching in a mixed ability classroom, contextuallearning, cooperative group work, curriculum development in a verticalstructure, gender issues and student welfare are examples of the range of issuesaddressed. Teachers planned and evaluated their units of work jointly, workedtogether in teams, swapped their ideas, brainstormed difficulties and jointlyproblem-solved possible solutions, enabling action to be quickly taken. A


61

secondary teacher at Clematis Secondary enthused over jointly plannedcurriculum units, ‘It was wonderful to work with enthusiastic people…we really justloved it; we liked the issues we were doing…you’d come out of class and think thatwas a really good lesson!’

Confronting philosophical issues was also part of teacher talk. For example, atBoronia West High School a recent concern about teaching in a mixed abilityclassroom was raised, a philosophical curriculum stance to which the school isstrongly committed. The questions raised below highlighted the central focus ofteaching and learning, particularly with regard to the needs of students:

How are we really coping with the mixed ability classroom? Are we teachingchildren who come in to us, almost illiterate and innumerate, to read andcount, or are we not? What about student x—it doesn’t seem to behappening there. Why isn’t it? What else should we be doing? (coordinator,Boronia West High School).

The questions raised above highlighted the central focus of teaching andlearning, particularly with regard to the needs of students. Solutions were soughtjointly and changes worked through by the whole staff. Follow-up takes place atthe fortnightly meetings. Not only did students benefit as a result, so too didteachers as their professional repertoire grew through the exchange of ideas andproposed solutions, and cooperative learning took place. At Boronia West HighSchool collaborative leadership generated a culture of collaboration which hasbeen perceptively described by Leithwood and Jantzi (1990:250):

This culture is student-centred and based on norms of interaction withstudents that are supportive and positive; while discipline is maintained,it is obviously there to serve the interests of learning rather than an endin its own right. Teachers have a shared technical culture built on normsof collegiality, collaborative planning and continuous improvement.Staff and the student body are cohesive and have a strong sense ofcommunity. There is reciprocity between, and among, staff andstudents. Administrators are expected to offer instructional leadershipand parents are considered co-partners in the education of studentswherever possible.

However, as Little (1990) has emphasized, collaboration per se does notautomatically serve the educational good. It can be counterproductive, forinstance, by standing in the way of change and maintaining the status quo, it canput down students; it can serve self-interest. Therefore ‘collegiality must belinked to norms of continuous improvement and experimentation in whichteachers are constantly seeking and assessing potentially better practices insideand outside their own schools and contributing to other [people’s practicethrough dissemination]’ (Fullan, Bennett and Rolheiser-Bennett, 1990:223).

A strong connection between the structural frame is evident here where


62

meeting structures and planning times set up by leaders in the school broughtformal as well as informal opportunities for cooperative involvement andcontinuous learning for staff, which in turn led to development of educationalopportunities for students.

In addition, collaborative leaders did a great deal of informal reinforcing talkto sustain and develop a collaborative culture, including praising and celebratingteachers’ successes. Principals openly recognized and publicly celebrated theachievements of their staff—their innovations, their professionalism, theircommitment and effort—and they encouraged them to value this in each other.‘We share our successes’, commented the integration teacher at Banksia Primary,strongly promoting the worthwhile activities of her staff. ‘A pat on the back doesso much more good than anything else’, comments a Year 3/4 teacher at KennediaPrimary adding that, ‘well-meant praise will improve the dynamics positively. AsFullan and Hargreaves (1991b:48) state ‘collaborative cultures are to be foundeverywhere in the life of the school…in overt praise, recognition and gratitude.’Leaders were regularly out and about in the school, particularly in the staffroom,available, talking and establishing an atmosphere where staff felt comfortable todiscuss their uncertainties and seek shared solutions in an atmosphere ofopenness and professional honesty, illustrated here by a comment of theintegration teacher at Banksia Primary:

Everyone shares the problem; we engender an expectation of sharedresponsibility. This has helped teachers and kids survive some torridtimes…everything depends on the openness of staff; it depends on peoplesharing ideas and the willingness to share. They must feel what they have toshare is valuable.

These words capture Cooper’s (1989:51) sentiment. ‘In professional settings,when teachers are moved to share, it is usually because they are proud ofsomething they have done with children. No amount of posturing about newroles and responsibilities can even begin to approach the powerful motivation toa professional.’ In developing a collaborative culture, leaders provided strongmodelling of professional cooperation and sharing by leaders in the school. Afaculty head at Cassinia Secondary College describes her approach:

I try to be really supportive of staff. I encourage people—can I help? Is thereanything I can do? Valuing other people’s point of view is important too—to get people to feel wanted and be part of things-actively bringing peopleinto the conversation.

In keeping with Ministry of Education (1985) guidelines, establishing a formalexpectation that staff will help each other is another feature of collaborativeleadership. ‘It’s really good to come to school and know you’ve got support, and they’llknow what you’re on about’, an experienced teacher commented. Cooperation,sharing ideas, listening to and respecting others, and working in teams are part


63

of an explicit assumption articulated by those in leadership positions. A Year 3/4 primary teacher at Kennedia Primary explains:

There is a school expectation here that we’ll all help each other, but it’s upto the individual teacher as to how we apply that expectation—it might hein the form of a unit plan or sharing extra materials—but the expectationis that we support and help each other.

In addition to formal expectations of support, collaborative leaders recognizeand give approval to informal networks of support. Support for colleagues issubstantial in the collaborative school. The student welfare officer at ClematisSecondary explains:

Most of the staff know what each other’s up to. We get on well. We enjoy eachother’s company. We talk a lot. We share a lot more—look for help; takeadvice. This leads to cooperation between staff—who teaches what, and howthe school operates.

In the present unsettling and unpredictable times of relentless educationalchange at both the school and system level, a collective confidence is oftennecessary to deal with the pedagogical and organizational complexities facingteachers. Fullan and Hargreaves (1991b:49) clarify this point: In collaborativecultures, teachers develop the collective confidence to respond to change quickly,selecting and adapting those elements that will aid improvement in their ownwork context, and rejecting those that will not.’ Informal networks and a spiritof collegiality assist staff in coping effectively and cultivate a sense of camaraderieleading to a positive mood in the school and high teacher morale. Importantly,also, a cohesive staff group is engendered. According to Nias, et al, (1989:74)‘help, support, trust and openness are at the heart of these [collaborative]relationships. Beneath that there is a commitment to valuing people asindividuals and valuing groups to which people belong.’ Collaborative leaders inthis study did just this.

Leaders initiated deliberate administrative assistance for staff. Joint planningtimes were timetabled; visits to other classrooms within their own and others’schools were arranged opportunities; to work together outside their ownclassroom (e.g. camps/excursions/fetes) were organized; staff social events wereregular features. School leaders took responsibility for administrative priorities inthe use of space, e.g. one community staffroom/faculty classrooms locatedadjacent to one another. The significance of such arrangements was not lost onprincipals. The Principal at Clematis Secondary describes the school’s staffroomas ‘a central staffroom—all is one! The Student Welfare Officer adds, ‘it’s a socialand a working staffroom—breeding cross fertilisation of ideas and reinforcing thatview of why we’re here.’

Teachers who share a similar educational philosophy appear to have a thepotential for a powerful working relationship. ‘Yes! Yes! I really agree with what


64

you’re saying’, was how one young primary teacher at Kennedia Primary Schoolfelt about a colleague’s shared ideological outlook. Putting aside personalitydifferences to focus on the task at hand, with the understanding that the interestsof the students override the idiosyncrasies of individual teachers can really makea difference to school success. ‘We understand why we’re here; we understandthere are differences amongst us all, but we manage to put that aside and worktogether.’

Collaborative leaders in the project schools instituted staff norms ofcontinuous learning. Professional development was held in high regard by schoolleaders. Teachers’ initiatives in curriculum improvement were valued andencouraged. As a result, teachers were motivated by their view of themselves ascontinuing learners in their desire to promote educational success for theirstudents. The careers teacher at Clematis Secondary shows sensitivity to thecontext for continuing learning. ‘It takes a lot of confidence to stand up in front ofyour peers—standing up as the so-called expert; it’s very hard to work out the balancebetween being the expert and being the friend, and being somebody with just anotherskill.’

A teacher leader at Banksia Primary reiterated her advice to staff, ‘No-one is anexpert, don’t give up. There’s no instant solution.’ Clearly leaders’ attitudes to theirstaff are critical if continuous learning is to become the norm, as one experiencedcoordinator puts it. ‘The only way you can get teachers to alter their practice in theirrooms is by nurturing people, giving them the professional development, and then theconfidence to try it and see if it works.’ This conviction supports Earth’s (1990:62)view that ‘teachers can become learners and can be extraordinarily effective instimulating and promoting the development of other teachers.’ Fullan (1988:44)describes the central task of the empowered manager as that of a ‘perpetuallearner—when it comes to learning, effective leaders are greedy.’ Cooperativeinquiry is motivated by teachers’ views of themselves as continuing learners,their confidence to take risks and attempt new practices. Collaborativeleadership sets the context for this to take place.

Closely linked to continuing learning is a leadership milieu which empowersstaff to take initiative and responsibility. Participatory decision-making,described in the structural frame in Chapter 4, ensures that those responsible forimplementing a decision are included in the consultation process. The humanside of this takes account of the fact that each person affected by a decision isencouraged to talk out his or her feelings and make ideas known. Strongconnections exist here between the democratic organization of the structuralframe and negotiation in the political frame. As a result the alienation thatimposition and lack of consultation brings does not occur. Instead, a respect fordiversity of opinion leads to a staff who trust each other, bonding peopletogether in a spirit of collegiality. Professional collegiality spills over into socialdomains and strong friendships amongst some staff can develop. Leaders otherthan the principal can play a vital role in establishing the conditions forcontinuing learning and staff development, as one young primary teacher atKennedia Primary School observed:


65

There are certain people who have fortes and influence the school other thanthe principal. Their personalities, their philosophical beliefs may be very,very strong in a certain area. Someone in charge of a school can ascertainwhere the qualities lie and, if he or she is smart, is able to draw them out.There is a real skill in seeing where the different strengths might lie, inbringing the people together, to delegate, to still be able to pull the strings inand collect the ideas, but be able to send them off to others, because then theeffect runs down and it’s a way of communicating that’s much easier thanone person sitting in the chair and playing God. Sensible leaders do that.Their strength is in being able to coordinate that.

Leaders at Kennedia Primary School modelled positive behaviours, and, as oneprimary teacher suggests:

There are certain people, other than the principal, who make wonderfulmodels in certain aspects—those with fortes in curriculum development orprofessional development—and they influence the school; their personalities,their philosophical beliefs are very, very strong in a certain area.

Demonstrating such constructive guidance by example contributes significantlyto the sustenance of a collaborative culture and to the enhancement ofprofessional development. As Earth (1990:19) observes:

My experience suggests that as it goes between teacher and principal soshall it go in other relationships. If the teacher—principal relationshipcan be characterized as helpful, supportive and trusting, revealing ofcraft knowledge, so too will others. To the extent that teacher-principalinteractions are suspicious, guarded, distant, adversarial, acrimonious,or judgmental, we are likely to see these traits pervade the school. Therelationship between teacher and principal seems to have anextraordinary amplifying effect. It models what all relationships will be.[Earth’s emphasis]

Collaborative Leadership and School Success—HumanResource Frame

Collaborative leadership, through the human resource frame, brings about acohesive staff group, a positive mood and high teacher morale, a formal andinformal network of support, a stimulating professional atmosphere, and,importantly, increased teacher skills.

Banksia Primary School specifies cooperation and team efforts at all levels assuccessful outcomes in the school. The principal there sees this as success ‘in theculture of the school…where there is pride in work, cooperating, learning andgrowing as a teacher, and believing your work is important’. This teacher culture,


66

according to a senior teacher at Banksia Primary, has a direct impact on studentlearning, ‘bringing about positive behaviour in kids, a feeling that school’s a goodplace to be, and a caring response to each other’.

Clematis Secondary’s success centres around ‘responding to its communityand its educational needs’. It takes account of the context from which the schoolpopulation is drawn and accommodates the needs of a school community with ‘atrait of Mediterranean and Asian cultures for a strong emphasis on the family,with other siblings looking after younger ones.’ As a result, the school hasintroduced a vertical structure where a mixed age range of students from Years 7to 10 form the core class groups. Pastoral care groups are also verticallystructured, incorporating family affiliations. To cater to this structureadjustments to the curriculum were necessary. The curriculum coordinator atClematis Secondary explains that teacher cooperation in curriculum planningdevelops innovative programs specifically designed for the urban studentclientele:

We made a conscious effort never to repeat a unit of work [because of theYear 7 to 10 structure]. We were very keen to have new things all the time—things that were current…every kid had new work that we prepared. Doingthings like that you develop work for your clientele. You had to do things inorder to stimulate/challenge—otherwise kids would be on support programs.And Year 7 to 10 in one class—you had to do things for a diverse group. Interms of accountability and looking at student outcomes, your program mustreflect that. When you look at your record-keeping sheets and you see kidshaven’t been able to do set tasks, you have to be able to turn around andthink, ‘Why can’t they do them?’ That leads to innovation.

At Boronia West High the human aspect operates strongly for students. A Year9 student at Boronia West High comments, ‘School works for me… everyoneknows each other. It’s like a brother and sister kind of relationship—with most ofthem anyway’

Attention to human resource aspects of leadership by leaders in the projectschools led to student, teacher and organizational success through consistentmonitoring of programs, innovative curriculum which caters to individualdifferences, and satisfied teachers who brought an enthusiastic disposition intotheir classroom practice. The health of these schools flourished as a result.Students were advantaged by teachers who loved their job, were professionallysatisfied and stimulated, were constantly reviewing and developing theirteaching practices, and who provided them with a positive atmosphere and aclimate conducive to learning. Learning thrived under such conditions and theopportunity for students to realize their educational potential was maximized.Peters and Waterman (1982:240) identify this approach as being highlyproductive, reaping rewards for the organization, as well as the individual,‘Nothing is more enticing than the feeling of being needed, which is the magicthat produces high expectations. What’s more, if it’s your peers that have those


67

high expectations of you, then there’s all the more incentive to performwell.’


Data were gathered from interviews, extracts from school documentation,observation and the School Profile (Appendix 1). In all, forty-six subjects wereinterviewed from members of the school communities of the five schools studiedand were drawn from an administration, teacher, parent and student base. Datawas collected, reduced and reported using the Miles and Huberman (1984)interactive components of data analysis represented in Figure 4 (p. 31). TheBolman and Deal (1991) structural, human resource, political and symbolicframes provided the structure for leadership analysis. The findings of each frameare reported separately in Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively. This chapterreports the findings of the human resource frame. What follows first however, aretwo worked through examples of the way in which primary data were transposedinto the succinct findings listed below. These examples come from the humanresource frame. Each finding was developed via the same process.

Example 1

Primary data Interview response from a faculty head at Cassinia Secondary School:

I try to be really supportive of staff. I encourage people—can I help? Is thereanything I can do? Valuing other people’s point of view is important too—to get people to feel wanted and be part of things-actively bringing peopleinto the conversation.

Interview response from the integration officer at Banksia Primary School:

Everyone shares the problem; we engender an expectation of sharedresponsibility. This has helped teachers and kids survive some torrid times.

Interview response from a Year 3/4 class teacher at Kennedia Primary:

There is a school expectation here that we’ll all help each other, but it’s upto the individual teacher as to how we apply that expectation—it might bein the form of a unit plan or sharing extra materials—but the expectationis that we support and help each other.

Interview response from a secondary teacher at the Boronia West High School:

It’s really good to come to school and know you’ve got support, and they’llknow what you’re on about.


68

The primary data leads to the finding

Leaders in the five project schools provide an informal as well as a formalnetwork of support.

Example 2

Primary data Interview response from the coordinator of Boronia West High School:

I think it’s important to question everything you’re doing if it doesn’t seemto be working for every child…How are we really coping with the mixedability classroom? Are we teaching children who come in to us almostilliterate and innumerate to read and count, or are we not? What aboutstudent x—it doesn’t seem to be happening there. Why isn’t it? What elseshould we be doing?

Interview response from the student welfare officer at Clematis Secondary:

It’s a social and a working staff room—breeding cross-fertilization of ideasand reinforcing that view of why we’re here.

Interview response from a Year 3/4 class teacher at Kennedia Primary School:

Our ultimate aim is to educate the children at this school to be independentlearners—to go on to high school, to go on to be social beings, to go off to theworkplace. We all have to gear our minds to one thing—high school. We areall clear on our goals all this other pettiness (staff hostility you see in otherschools) gets pushed aside. We need to say, ‘Right, the kids are here. This isour job.’


Leaders who promote, develop and sustain human resource elements in theirschools value teaching and learning as the primary and overriding role of theschool.

The preceding examples illustrate the kind of responses which interviewees gaveto the interview questions. Responses were spontaneous and articulate, withrecurring themes arising as the interviews progressed. Comments wereimpromptu and a congruity of responses over the nearly forty hours ofinterviews led to a sense of certainty and confirmation of the followinggeneralized findings.


69

Findings of the Human Resource Frame

What is it that leaders do to promote, develop and sustain collaborative cultures inurban schools?

The findings of this chapter clearly indicate that collaborative leadership, whichengenders a school culture fostering and promoting human resourceperspectives, brings about effective teaching practice, which in turn results ingreat gains for students. In summary, then, leaders who promote, develop andsustain human resource elements in their schools:

• seek out the skills and talents of school community members and matchthese to roles and responsibilities;

• respond to the needs of individuals and accommodate these as appropriateto the overall vision of the roles and responsibilities; the school;

• value teaching and learning as the primary and overriding role of theschool;

• institute staff norms of continuous learning;• establish a formal expectation that staff will help each other;• give approval to an informal, as well as a formal, network of support;• provide strong modelling of professional cooperation and sharing by

leaders in the school;• encourage all staff to express their professional individuality and

particular fortes in the planning of curriculum;• establish an atmosphere of openness where staff feel comfortable to

discuss their uncertainties and seek shared solutions;• do a great deal of informal reinforcing talk.

Assist staff by:

• timetabling joint planning times;• making visits possible to other classrooms within their own and others’

schools;• giving them opportunities to work together outside their own

classroom, for example, camps/excursions/fetes;• taking responsibility for administrative priorities in the use of space, for

example, one community staff room/faculty classrooms located adjacentto one another.

Characterized by:

• leaders who have a deep-seated belief in the intrinsic value of eachindividual member of staff;

• teachers who share a similar educational philosophy;• teachers who can put aside personality differences to focus on the task

at hand, with the understanding that the interests of the studentsoverride the idiosyncrasies of individual members of staff;


70

• a working environment of mutual support, professional acceptance andcontinuous learning.


It brings about:

• a cohesive staff group;• a positive mood and high teacher morale;• a formal and informal support network;• a stimulating professional atmosphere;• increased teacher skills;• a sense of shared responsibility for students;• a constantly developing curriculum.


It is clear that specific leadership behaviours are critical to success in developingand sustaining a collaborative culture, and to bringing about success in schools.Underpinning this leadership behaviour is the belief of school leaders that anorganization’s most vital resource is the talent, skill and energy of its individualmembers. Collaborative leaders go out of their way to celebrate and promote this.In schools, or sections of a school, where collaborative leadership is an integral partof school routine, mutual professional respect and cooperative sharing were evident,and a powerfulness was brought to the professional activity in that school whichbore direct and significant results for its students. Effective leadership acknowledgesthe fact that schools are socially constructed; they are congregations of peoplewhere an interdependence exists between the school as an organization and itsindividual members. Organizations need professional experience, ideas andcommitment; people need satisfying work, an income and social and personalexpression. Good leadership is sensitive to this interdependence, taking active stepsto meet the professional and personal needs of staff, and, at the same time, achievingschool success. As Leithwood, Begley and Cousins (1992:144) conclude:

compelling evidence suggests that collaborative school culturescontribute significantly to teacher development. Such cultures, whichare ‘shared’ and ‘technical’ appear to foster practices most conducive tothe types of staff (and student) development which are the focus ofcurrent school-reform efforts.

Note

1 In reference to the usage of the term ‘leader’ it must be noted that all interview subjectsquoted in this book, whatever their title (for example, class teachers, faculty heads,integration teacher) are defined as ‘leaders’.

71

Chapter 6

The Political Frame

Chapter 5 dealt with the human resource frame of leadership. This chapter isconcerned with a further feature of collaborative leadership, namely the politicalperspective of leadership, outlined in the political frame of the Bolman and Deal(1991) typology. It is shown that leaders’ understanding and management of thepolitical milieu of school life is critical to success in the school. Far from beingconsidered an obstacle to an effectively run school, a firm grasp of the politics ofschool life gives leaders a necessary tool for advancing the vision and goals it setsout to achieve.

The conceptual framework outlined several elements embraced by thepolitical perspective:

• absence of hierarchy;• power-sharing;• open discussion;• consensus;• majority rule;• shared responsibility;• using authority;• using influence;• diffusing conflict;• agreed-upon political behaviour;• participatory decision-making procedures;• disagreements not seen as disruptive;• absence of sub-groups;• negotiation;• coalitions;• networks.

This chapter will focus on these particular characteristics of collaborative leadership,though it is conceded that the other three perspectives—structure, human andsymbolic—are imperative to complete the full picture. Emphasis will be given towhat leaders1 do in a political sense to achieve success in their schools.

Again, predesigned interview questions (see Appendix 2) sought outinformation pertinent to a particular frame of leadership, in this case, thepolitical frame. The questions were as follows:


72

• In what ways is power shared in the school?• In what preferred processes would you and other leaders engage in to

ensure consensus is reached—with regard to curriculum decisions orconflict resolution? What processes would you not engage in?

• How has this fostered improvement in school outcomes—for example,in staff cohesion or student and teacher morale?

• Other?

Leadership and the Political Frame

Understandings gained from the literature inform us that the way in whichleaders manage the political milieu of the school is critical to school success.Leaders use power as a means of attaining group goals and facilitatingachievements. Solutions to problems can be developed through political skilland acumen, and negotiation and bargaining are all part of everydayorganizational life.

If, as Bolman and Deal (1991) suggest, the goals, structure and policies of aschool emerge from an on-going process of bargaining and negotiating amongstaff, then there is an apparent need for leaders to immerse themselves in thepolitical milieu of the school and be sensitive to the formal and informalprocesses at work, if their schools are to be successful.

Acceptance of politics as inevitable in the daily life of the school acknowledgesthat problems will routinely arise. Leaders accept that people will have differingopinions about the way in which the issues should be resolved. Moreover, people’sbeliefs about the matters at hand will be fervent, and passionately held, as they areat the centre of what is closest to their hearts—their personal professionalconvictions. In urban schools where the state-of-play is constantly changing interms of social welfare pressures, the demands of curriculum, a transient clienteleand the structural organization of the schools themselves, matters of serious concernare continually on the agenda. Formal political processes which are seen to be fairand just provide a context in which issues can be addressed and problems solved asamicably as possible, and as part of customary practice. This doesn’t mean thatemotions don’t run high. But it does mean that people feel they have had a fair say,and that they have had a real opportunity to be heard and have an influence. Thestudent welfare officer at Clematis Secondary observes:

We operate on a structure in which significant decisions are made. Withinthat context people are given authority because of the fact that they are putinto those positions under an elective process—it’s not the fact that they’vebeen put in by the principal or a small clique and therefore may be undersuspicion.

Decisions are readily accepted when there is a trust in the processes of anorganization. Beyond the Ministry of Education 1985 guidelines, which

The Political Frame

73

mandated formal consultative processes, members of fully functioningcollaborative schools hold an intrinsic personal belief in the sharing of power, acommitment to power-sharing in a real way which diffuses much of the conflict,resistance and self-protection associated with negative politics. Schools that aretruly democratically organized develop positive, harmonious workingrelationships where the good health of the organization is protected, and as aresult, allow educational issues to take centre stage. Sergiovanni (1990) quotesKanter’s (1977) view which warns of serious dangers for personal andorganizational health if power is not shared and opportunities for activeparticipation are denied to members of an organization:

people who view their opportunity for personal growth and advancementand participation as low tend to limit their aspirations, have lower self-esteem, seek satisfaction outside work, are critical of management, are lesslikely to seek changes openly preferring to gripe informally and to stir theundercurrent, steer peer groups toward defensiveness and self protection,emphasize social relationships over tasks, be more parochial, become morecomplacent, and become concerned with survival and economic securityrather than intrinsic aspects of the job. Persons who view themselves aslow in power tend to encourage and promote low morale, be critical,behave in authoritarian ways over their own charges, seek to gain andretain control, discourage growth and opportunities of subordinates, bemore insecure, and protect turf. It’s pretty hard to imagine quality schoolingemerging from principals, teachers, and parents who harbor these feelingsand possess these characteristics. (Sergiovanni, 1990:116).

Undoubtedly there is a fusing of structural and political dimensions here whichthe Principal of Clematis Secondary College astutely recognizes:

The paradox is that there is this very democratic formal structure, but it is likea political system—everyone is playing politics along the way and trying to getsomething up…there’s an open approach to everyone, a greater sense of fairplay being the name of the game. No-one likes to lose on something they holddear, but they accept it fairly well—if they don’t get the vote, they don’t get thevote.

In collaboratively functioning schools, power is actively shared and decisions arereached via consensus or vote. Interestingly, of the participating schools,preference for reaching decisions by consensus or vote was divided, and notassociated with a primary or secondary-based setting. Where consensus tookpreference, voting took place only occasionally when an agreement could not bereached. The coordinator at Boronia West High School comments:

Consensus can be reached via a common philosophy and a respect for whatpeople are saying—you tend to be able to listen to someone saying something


74

quite different from you, knowing that underlying it there are similarconcerns…We try for consensus, we rarely have to vote. I don’t like votingabout matters that particularly concern people because it becomes a numbersgame rather than something you’ve actually thought about, or can feel thatyour opinion is valued in any way.

Reaching agreement through discussion, negotiation and compromise in aclimate of openness, with those who might oppose or advance the educationalagenda, characterizes collaboratively functioning urban schools. As a Year 9student at Boronia West High explains, ‘…you mostly win if it’s a good point, oryou get the full story…mostly we meet halfway and it works out.’ Power is used ina positive way to advance the vision of the school and build a strongercommitment by staff, students and parents to the implementation of decisionsresults. Here political realities are recognized, ‘Human beings live out their dailylives and socially construct their reality through the negotiations, contractionsand resistances of the rules and resources within which their lives are entwined’(Watkins, 1989:23).

In a collaborative culture, power is shared and decisions are reached viaconsensus or vote. Drawing on his earlier work (Watkins, 1985) and that ofGiddens (1979), Peter Watkins (1989:23) asserts:

If we are to treat people as anything other than mere ciphers orautomatons blindly following a superior who has been designated orwho has been taught to be a leader, then we must incorporate a view ofhuman agency whereby people are seen to conduct their lives not as‘cultural dopes’ but as knowledgeable human beings.

In terms of leadership in schools this means that people in the organization canbe both dynamic participants in its operation and contributors of worthwhileprofessional knowledge, if they are permitted to be part of the decision-makingprocesses. A serious obstacle to collaboration identified in this book was whatwas seen to be the inappropriate use of the power of veto by the principal. It isthe right of school principals in Victoria to exercise the power of veto at any timeat their own discretion. However, when deep-seated beliefs in power sharing andconsultative processes were held by staff, the use of veto over decisions reachedby vote or consensus was deeply resented. Staff felt a loss of empowerment andownership over what was to be implemented and often withdrew their support,commitment and enthusiasm for school programs. The principal at ClematisSecondary College explains the relationship between his role and the power ofveto:

Any ideas or actions come from the staff as a whole and the AdministrativeCommittee administers those wishes. The principal’s role is to step in andsay when something is completely unacceptable. There’s a veto, but normallythat doesn’t happen unless things are at odds with the School Council.

The Political Frame

75

And at another school, a senior teacher explains:

a few times the principal has made decisions without consultation. Hehasn’t appreciated that discussion is needed, but it’s been OK—he justneeded to know that discussion needed to be extended on controversialissues. He feels fine about that, and people feel OK about approaching him.If the principal is not approachable it creates a lot of discontent andunhappiness.

Unquestionably leaders in the project schools were overtly aware of, and cautiousto avoid Watkins’ (1989:27) ‘critical paradigm’ of educational administrationwhich:

…offers the possibility of a view of educational administration whichwill help the school community to understand how the most ‘efficient’and elaborately devised organizational planning often turns out to be amanipulative trap from which organizational members may havedifficulty extricating themselves. The traditional school principal with adisproportionate degree of power was often able to create andimplement such manipulative traps through the ability to shape muchof the language, direct much of the discourse and guide much of thepractice within the educational community.

In schools where a collaborative culture had been entrenched for some time, theprincipal gave credence to the obligatory need to treat the power of veto with theutmost sensitivity. However, in schools like Banksia Primary which, according tothe principal, are working towards a collaborative culture, that strategy was notso straightforward. At times it was not clear-cut who should make an overridingdecision—the staff through consensus, or the principal with a new vision. Thisscenario points to a significant tension between the principal and accountabilityand consensus procedures. In a school which is in the process of changing fromhierarchical to collaborative decisionmaking sometimes consensus is notappropriate and ‘things may need dictating, say, to bring curriculum into line withMinisterial guidelines’, as one young teacher at Banksia Primary maintained.Other staff seem to appreciate this dilemma. ‘The buck stops with him.’ (theprincipal), meaning the principal must bear the responsibility of the decisionsmade by the staff. ‘[The principal] makes the ultimate decision. It is one of hisstipulated roles. Ultimately a decision has to be made by an administrator who hasan overall view—not just one perspective. He carries that decision.’

Despite these differences all of the project schools were cognizant of Watkins(1989:27) ‘critical’ view of politics of power and control:

By adopting a critical view of leadership within the schools, byrecognizing that all human agents have some degree of knowledge, byunmasking manipulative, deceptive tactics, school administration


76

would be founded on a more equal power basis. As a consequence manyadministrative practices would become demystified as the schoolcommunity gained a critical understanding of those processes central tothe reshaping of school administration on a more participatory,collaborative basis.

At Cassinia Secondary College voting was the strategy used to reach decisions.If voting was close, or the matter of vital concern, issues would be re-agendedto allow further debate, up to three or four times if necessary. Staff meetingsbecame the mechanism to air views and for informal debate. The formeramalgamation in 1988 of the Technical and High Schools into the CassiniaSecondary College had left scars that were still healing at the time this researchwas being undertaken. It was a bitter merger, which at the time split the staffinto two camps—the tech teachers on the one hand, and the high schoolteachers on the other. Leave as it that rift had largely healed, a degree ofdistrust and disaffection still remained amongst teachers. So, in terms ofreaching decisions, where no ground was given by either side, a vote had to betaken. The political climate is changing as one staff member commented,‘Now people are feeling more secure and trusting of each other, we are movingtowards consensus!

In the participating schools, leaders use power as a means of attaining groupgoals and facilitating achievements. Solutions to problems can be developedthrough political skill and acumen. Further, establishment of democraticstrategies with a fair representation of views, brings about a sense of trust which,in turn, leads to an acceptance of decisions, and institutionalization of theschool’s purposes into the day-to-day practice. The principal of Banksia PrimarySchool explains how it works for them… ‘We sit down and negotiate the processto make the decision; everything is owned all the way through; understood all the waythrough; everyone has the opportunity to put in.’

Negotiation and bargaining through talk and interaction are all part ofeveryday organizational life. Tapping into the informal network and acceptinginformal politics as routine assists leaders to accurately read the political moodin their school. Much informal lobbying takes place around the school and atthe pub on Friday nights. The power of the informal network cannot beunderestimated. Unchecked, it can block the formal decision-making process asone Cassinia Secondary College teacher recounts of past experience:

It’s personality and skill that brings influence; it’s amazing, very strong.Through conversation, chat, it’s decided who gets nominated and getssupport. There’s lobbying power over enough staff to dictate the powergroups…if that group don’t support a decision it doesn’t get throughusually.

The primary data revealed that the realities of political influences are informal aswell as formal with all sorts of networks of people talking about all sorts of topics, all

The Political Frame

77

the time. Constructive intervention by leaders can be made to guide energies sothat they better serve the educational offerings of students. In successful schoolsthis is achieved through people talking to one another face-to-face, informally,and formally by presenting their views openly in staff meetings. The deputyprincipal at Clematis Secondary makes the observation that the political processrelies on people talking to each other.

In the open, public forum you can’t manoeuvre the system, for example bypresenting different faces and trying to manoeuvre the result. But here you’vegot to tell people frankly what you think, because in the end you’ve got todefend it in the public forum. You can’t afford not to be honest…honesty isthe best policy and it’s just structured that way.

Undoubtedly, strong connections exist here with the structural frame and withsignificant implications. It doesn’t stop people having their own cliques or interestgroups, but it does stop people ruling through those, reveals the Staff DevelopmentOfficer at Clematis Secondary.

These are penetrating comments as they lie at the heart of how leaders candesign a formal structure to control the informal politics of an organization,providing a constructive means of bringing important issues onto the formalagenda, and having a positive influence (for example, improved representation ofwomen in leadership roles/innovation of curriculum). As mentioned above, it ispossible for a single person or group to dominate decision-making of a schoolthrough strength of personality and/or informal power. Openness and honestythrough the public forum of whole staff meetings avoids the shared values andbeliefs of the school community being subverted by the negative informallobbying of a few.

This confirms Deal and Peterson’s (1990:5) belief that ‘good schoolfunctioning depends on the forming of working coalitions around schoolpurposes’ and practices. However, people’s affiliations can alter according tothe issues at hand. ‘On some issues some people are on one side, but people arechanging sides all the time and are on different sides of the issues’ (deputyprincipal, Clematis Secondary). As one senior teacher points out, ‘There arealso views that people all have the same view or support the same power base. Thisis not the case. They may have cups of tea together, but vote quite differently.’Professional alliances were present in all the participating schools; interestgroups formed to discuss, plan and develop curriculum and organizationalinitiatives; networks of support were built within the school base, and stafflobbied to gain support for their projects. This involved leaders in the schoolsin a good deal of talking and interaction with others, ‘in a lot of time talkingbetween meetings’ (curriculum coordinator, Cassinia Secondary), and as thepresident of the Banksia School Council put it, ‘a lot of background workphysically running around’. In addition, leaders extended their networks intothe community and strong links with outside agencies and cluster schoolgroups were maintained. There was Ministry of Education support, shared use


78

of multicultural aides, teacher union involvement and Inner MelbourneSupport Centre liaison; social welfare and police assistance was called upon asnecessary. All of the schools worked actively with cluster schools, networkingwith their staffs, working collaboratively to enhance the resources available toall students. The pilot project Students at Risk set up in 1988 by the Cassinia/Yarra Schools Group, provides an example of such cooperation. An attitude ofgoodwill pervaded amongst urban schools, despite the current competitiveclimate for student enrolments.

A further important priority of leaders was to ensure that all information wasreadily available to all parties. At Banksia Primary, documentation such as schoolpolicies, or drafts of work in progress, were publicly displayed in the receptionarea, so that decisions being made were open for comment and input by anyonein the school community. Similarly it was seen as important at ClematisSecondary that all information was available to everyone. ‘At every meeting thattakes place minutes are taken and stored publicly, everybody’s timetables weredisplayed on the board for all to see. There are no sweetheart deals. No-one gets anyfavours or expects them. There are no special deals on the basis of friendship orseniority.’ (senior administrator, responsible for timetabling, rosters etc, andknown as ‘the daily organiser’, Clematis Secondary).

The primary data demonstrates that power can only be decentralized if theindividuals to whom power is entrusted have access to the information necessaryto make good decisions. In the private sector, as well as in public education,much information historically has been available only at the top of theorganization. If people want to make changes, they must have information of thecurrent situation. ‘Access to information is access to power’, as one member of staffat Clematis Secondary College points out. As Robbins (1989:342) states, ‘Whenan individual in a group controls unique information, and when thatinformation is needed to make a decision, that individual has knowledge-basedpower.’ Opening up structures and promoting an atmosphere of open, honestcommunication so that knowledge is disseminated to all enabled a depth ofparticipation in decision-making which assisted in the provision of a moreequitable distribution of power. ‘The main thing is to make people feel confidentthat even though they may not like their lot in life, it has been arrived at in a fairand equitable way’ (daily organiser, Clematis Secondary). This is significant intwo ways. First, it allows for interactive, free flowing ideas thus enlarging thechoices from which decisions can be made. Second, it goes a long way toeradicate the deliberate withholding of information from others in order to gaincontrol and personal status. Eliminating the formal opportunity for such tacticsstrengthens a ‘fairness culture’ and fosters harmonious relationships in theorganization. Of significance is Giddens’ (1979:88) assertion that ‘power is thetransformative capacity through which people are capable of achieving certainoutcomes.’ That is, power is a relationship and not a resource. Seeing power asa relationship has far-reaching implications for leaders in the maintaining andsustaining of a collaborative school culture.

The Political Frame

79

Collaborative Leadership and School Success—PoliticalFrame

Collaborative leadership through the political frame brought about participatorydecision-making procedures, power sharing, open discussions and forums, andshared responsibility for all sections of the school community. Leadersestablished conditions where empowerment, fair and equitable decision-making,an atmosphere of openness and a striving for consensus achieved success for theirschools.

Success at Clematis Secondary College came in the form of addressing theparticular educational needs of its urban clientele ‘resulting in outstandingimprovement in outcomes in recent years in the program as a whole’. This wasaccomplished through an elective system of subjects designed ‘to providestudents with a greater sense of empowerment over their school lives, and agreater commitment to their studies by putting the greatest degree of choiceabout subjects studied in the hands of students and their families’. (Response toSchool Profile, Appendix 1). This innovation required prudent management ofchange and curriculum development with political elements to the fore.Empowerment of students and parents was central to the change. The deputyprincipal explains how such change takes place. ‘Small committees work onconsensus. If they can’t agree, it [the proposed change] is put up as a motion and thenpassed. It then goes to the staff meeting and is voted on. This process keeps the systemrunning. It’s fed by committee decisions.’ In urban schools where the pace ofchange was so rapid and so much was happening at once, the use of agreed-uponpolitical behaviour by leaders facilitated open discussion, consensus or majoritydecisions, and diffusion of conflict, thereby enabling a commitment of staff tocurriculum change and its implementation. This in turn led to enhancement oflearning for students and to the success outlined above at Clematis SecondaryCollege.

Kennedia Primary School sees part of its success lying in the organization andsupport of teaching and learning where:

all members of a diverse school community work harmoniouslytogether; where a tradition of democratic decision-making exists, wherestaff members are cooperative and supportive of each other; where thereis on-going professional development; and where policy-writing,evaluation and review of curriculum development are establishedcomponents of school organization and are working effectively. Inaddition, there has been innovation in the curriculum, namely acomprehensive Personal Development program, a Visual Arts programand the development of the Maths Task Centre (response to SchoolProfile, Appendix 1).

In order to achieve this degree of success leaders at Kennedia Primary Schooldemonstrated much political skill. Leaders ensured participatory decisionmaking


80

procedures and shared responsibility were institutionalized in the school.Authority and influence were used in constructive ways to advance the vision ofthe school. There was an absence of sub-groups. Creation of coalitions based onissues rather than on personalities brought a positive political influence and led toa harmonious learning environment for both students and staff. Disagreementsover educational issues were seen as routine, open discussion and a valuing ofothers’ opinions being employed by leaders to negotiate consensus decisions.Success was achieved by leaders through the active use of these political strategies.A Year 3/4 class teacher explains, ‘We discuss it [the issue]. Reagenda it if necessary.Talk through the whole thing. Everyone has their say (you can’t just say ‘you’re right,you’re wrong’). People feed off that and agree or disagree. This political climategenerates positive relationships leading to cooperation and support of theintroduction of new programs like those listed above, and, as result the childrenat Kennedia Primary school are advantaged as a result.

Politically the scene at Cassinia Secondary College was a volatile one. The wayin which decisions were made, the degree to which power and responsibility wasshared, the acknowledgment of the need for openness and frankness amongststaff, and the striving for consensus all had direct consequences for thedevelopment, or absence, of a collaborative culture in the school.

The political milieu at Cassinia Secondary College was vigorous as a result ofthe 1988 amalgamation of the Technical and High schools on the present site.Sensitive handling of decision-making was required and leaders were consciousof the need for consultation at all levels. ‘The staff meeting is a mechanism to airviews, and gives the opportunity to see it [the issue] in a different light. We give itsecond, third or fourth opportunities, which is much more productive than a singlevote where say there’s 15 for, 9 against, and the rest abstain. This [latter situation]is typical of low staff morale.’

Banksia Primary School considers its success to be centred around theintroduction of new approaches to the organization and support of learning andteaching. It cites ‘great policies, cooperation, team efforts at all levels, opendecision-making, promotion of people who are doing well, and involvement inthe local community’ as inclusive of its accomplishments. Leaders at BanksiaPrimary also focused on political elements in developing a collaborative culturein the school and achieving school success. As related in the narrative of thestructural frame, decision-making was inclusive with power shared across allsectors of the school community. Promotion of democratic processes led to widerepresentation and leadership responsibility. It also allowed people to expresstheir opinions and to feel that they were given a fair hearing. Leaders providedan open, supportive environment encouraging the sharing and challenging ofideas. Having had the opportunity to influence the outcome of a decision, staff,students and parents were more accepting of it and gave greater commitment toits implementation. Skills of negotiation and appropriate exercising of authorityby leaders assisted the process. Changes in policy were thus institutionalizedbringing success to the school. As well, success in establishing cooperation andteam efforts eventuated.

The Political Frame

81


Findings of the political frame were established using the same methodology asthat of the other three frames. Miles and Huberman’s (1984) interactive modelprovided the means by which the large volume of primary data, collected frominterviews, documentation, observation and the School Profile (Appendix 1) wascategorized and analysed. These data were revisited many times, being classifiedand reclassified until eventually the findings were refined to the distilled formpresented below. Figure 4 (p. 31) shows the approach. Data was organized intothe structural, human resource, political and symbolic elements of the Bolmanand Deal (1991) typology. Findings from each frame were then generalized. Thefindings of the political frame are presented in this chapter. What follows first,however, are two worked-through examples of the way in which primary datawere transposed into the succinct findings listed below. These examples comefrom the political frame. Each finding was developed via the same process.

Example 1

Primary data Interview response from the daily organiser at Clematis Secondary College:

Information is the most important thing and information at this school isavailable to everybody. At every meeting that takes place minutes are takenand stored publicly. Everybody’s timetable, everyone’s allotment, is displayedon the noticeboards for everyone to read. There are no sweetheart deals,nobody can say this person’s getting favours that we don’t know about,because it’s all public. Nobody gets any favours or expects them. It’sextremely important that people don’t feel there are any special deals forpeople on the basis of friendship or seniority; and it’s also important so thatpeople understand the methods that are used to administer the place. Ifpeople want to make changes that sort of information is essential becauseyou can’t propose a change unless you know how the current system isoperating.

Interview response from the principal of the Banksia Primary School:

Proposals for curriculum policy have to go to staff, and have to go to theschool community. To go to the school community what we actually do is runoff about 20 copies of the proposal and put them on the front bench. Thenwe just put in the newsletter (we have a newsletter that goes home toeveryone) that ‘there are copies of a proposed language policy and possibleprogram on the front bench, and if you’re interested would you take one andread it’—and people do, and they comment on it.


82

Interview response from the Year 5/6 class teacher at Kennedia Primary School:

The newsletter is pretty informative. We print important things in otherlanguages. We have a set time when the multicultural teacher aides are allhere and are available to speak with parents on the phone or face-to-face.Parents read something in the newsletter (and it’s got to be written in otherlanguages) and it says ‘if you want know more about this, ring on Tuesdayafternoon.’


Politically astute collaborative leaders in inner city schools ensure allinformation is accessible to all.

Example 2

Primary data

Interview response from the principal of the Banksia Primary School:

We sit down and negotiate the process to make the decision; everything isowned all the way through; understood all the way through; everyone hasthe opportunity to put in.

Interview response from the principal of the Clematis Secondary College:

Anyone can put up a motion about anything they like, anytime they like.

Interview response from the president of the School Council of the BanksiaPrimary School:

As a parent I see the organization in the sense that it is an open school, thatwe are welcome at any time…you don’t feel that if there is a problem youcan’t go in…so there’s an openness, there’s a sense of belonging that’s builtup that this is our school, this is our community.

Interview response from a Year 3/4 class teacher at Kennedia Primary School:

Band 3/4 teachers have the power. But newer teachers are encouraged…theseniors promote your right to have your view.


Leaders in the project school foster active participation by all sectors of theschool community in the decision-making process.

The above examples are illustrative of the replies of leaders in the schools to the

The Political Frame

83

interview questions. There was a recurring pattern in the responses and aconsistency over the nearly forty hours of interviews which led to a certitude andauthenticity of the following generalized findings.

Findings of the Political Frame

What is it that leaders do to promote, develop and sustain collaborative culturesin urban schools?

The above discussion leads to some generalizations about what it is that leadersdo, via political processes, to promote, develop and sustain collaborative culturesin urban schools. Politically astute, collaborative leaders:

• see political processes as part of everyday school life;• foster active participation by all sections of the school community in the

decision-making processes;• promote open forums, where points of view are defended publicly,

avoiding negative manipulation of the decision-making process;• reach agreement through consensus wherever possible;• vote on decisions that cannot be reached by consensus;• exert positive influence in an informal way by lobbying or outcomes

which will advance the educational agenda;• ensure all information is accessible to all.

Characterized by:

• an openness and honesty in presenting points of view;• showing respect for, and attention to, people’s points of view;• a sharing of power;• a preparedness to accept decisions made by majority rule;• a satisfaction that the system is fair.


It brings about:

• well thought through decisions;• a stronger commitment by staff, student and parents to the

implementation of decisions;• a sense of trust;• an advancing of the educational agenda.


Far from being negative or destructive in the organization, political elements of


84

collaborative leadership in this book emerge as contributing to soundorganizational health and an advancing of the educational agenda. Leaders in theparticipating schools took active steps to ensure an absence of hierarchy,empowerment of teachers, students and parents, open and frank discussion anda striving for consensus. Political skills of lobbying, negotiation, positive use ofauthority and the diffusion of conflict, led to a positive influence and successfulstudent, teacher and organizational outcomes. Political processes were seen aspart of everyday school life and leaders fostered an active participation bymembers of the school community in the decision-making process. As a result,decisions were well thought through, a sense of trust was engendered, andcommitment of staff, students and parents to the implementation of decisionswas strong.

Note

1 In reference to the usage of the term ‘leader’ it must be noted that all interview subjectsquoted in this book, whatever their title (for example, class teachers, faculty heads,integration teacher) are denned as ‘leaders’.

85

Chapter 7

The Symbolic Frame

Chapter 6 presented insights into the political frame of leadership in acollaborative culture. Chapter 7 addresses the fourth frame of the Bolman andDeal (1991) thesis, namely the symbolic frame. Each of the four frames—structural, human resource, political and symbolic—brings particular andpeculiar understandings to the study of leadership in an organization. Thespecific contribution of the symbolic frame is the attention it gives to the sharedunderstandings that run beneath the surface of organizational life, oftensubmerged and overlooked. In a sense they are out of sight and this makes themparticularly elusive and hard to capture, or indeed, even articulate. Leaders whocan read between the lines of the symbolic frame are in an enviable position. For,from that enlightened position they can nurture and promote the beliefs andvalues embedded in school life, and take action to portray them throughsymbols, rituals and ceremonies. Schools are full of symbolic happenings andevents. Leaders who can recognize their significance then have the potential toexploit their capacity to bring success to their school.

The conceptual framework outlined in Chapter 2 identified several distinctiveelements of the symbolic frame:

• beliefs;• values;• attitudes;• norms of behaviour;• shared meanings;• symbols;• rituals;• ceremonies.

This chapter discusses the symbolic aspects of collaborative leadership, makingan explicit distinction between symbolic perspectives and the broader culture inwhich they reside. Mention is made of the unique demands facing urban schoolsin Melbourne at the present time, and of the personal as well as organizationalvalues and beliefs that prevail in successful schools. Findings have beensynthesized from this analysis providing specific student, teacher andorganizational outcomes.

Although the very nature of the symbolic aspects of the culture of a schoolmakes it difficult to isolate, Nias, et al (1989:11) see it as important to


86

disentangle their identifiable features and propose the following as essentialcharacteristics of the symbolic frame—beliefs, values, understandings, attitudes,meanings and norms (arrived at by interaction); and symbols, rituals andceremonies. Conceptually delineating the symbolic frame in this way is usefulin drawing out the specific features of what is otherwise a non-specific area ofstudy.

In terms of conceptualizing the symbolic perspective, it is important todistinguish it from the notion of culture. In many writings associated withleadership theory, culture is seen as synonymous with values, beliefs, sharedmeanings, symbols, rituals and ceremonies. While acknowledging that the twoare closely aligned, the position taken here is that symbolic aspects do not equalculture. In this book, collaborative culture is interpreted in a broader contextwhich importantly includes the symbolic frame, but also embraces structural,human resource and political perspectives. It mirrors Richard Bates’ (1993:3)revealing interpretation which links symbolic aspects to action:

Culture is what gives meaning to life. Culture is the intellectualframework that connects beliefs, values and knowledge with action.Culture is sedimented deeply into the unconciousness of individualsthrough routinisation of action. Administration is part of the processand facilitates or inhibits collective action through the mobilisation ofresources and the routinisation of action. Administration inevitably,therefore, not only produces and reproduces, but it is also saturatedwith cultural concerns.

This specifics of my delineation of cultural elements have been set out in theconceptual framework outlined in Chapter 2, which details further discussion asto what it is that encompasses a collaborative culture. But for now, one feature,namely, the symbolic perspective, is addressed.

The symbolic aspects of an organization comprise beliefs and values, attitudesand norms of behaviour. These are embedded in the day-to-day activities of aschool and are represented in symbols, rituals and ceremonies. The questionsasked of the staff, parent and student leaders1 in the five project schools withregard to the symbolic frame were:

• What shared values run through the daily activities of school life?• What do you and other leaders do to preserve and promote those

values—say, in the traditions and symbols of the school, or, informally?• How has this brought about the successes achieved in the school?• Other?

The questions for the symbolic frame proved to be difficult to answer as, bydefinition, the symbolic elements are elusive and difficult to articulate. Leadersin schools know they must work simultaneously on staff needs and skills, ongoals and roles and the dynamics of political power and conflict. But there is

The Symbolic Frame

87

something else that operates beyond all of these, an intangible manifestation thatreflects the ethos of the school. It embodies the shared values that run throughthe school. It is a strong undercurrent which flows beneath the surface, givingmeaning to and shaping the daily choices and priorities of school activities. Itbrings a propelling power to the decisions being made in the school, and yet itis largely unarticulated. It is not surprising, therefore, given the implicit, tacitnature of shared meanings and norms operating in a school setting, that subjectsfound the answers to the above questions far from straightforward. As a seniorteacher at Banksia Primary replied, ‘I can’t really put my finger on it—it’s a son offeeling.’ Likewise from the deputy principal at Cassinia Secondary College, ‘Isuppose there is a bottom line but I haven’t identified it yet!’ As a result of suchresponses, the questions of the symbolic frame were modified and generalized.The results, therefore, have been derived from a wider variety of discussionarising from extended questions about values and beliefs, often ranging acrossthe other frames of reference—human, political and structural.

Leadership and the Symbolic Frame

Results indicate that there is a deeply ingrained, common thread of shared beliefwhich guides the practice of those working successfully in urban schools ofMelbourne. It is central to the work done in these schools and embodies anunswerving commitment to the children in their care. It goes beyond theacademic domain of teaching and learning into the social context of students. Itis the expression of these values by leaders in the school which brings thesymbolism alive. Leaders promote and protect these beliefs through theleadership behaviour of the structural, human resource and political frames,outlined in the foregoing chapters, which institutionalizes the vision of theschool, grounding the underpinning beliefs in the school’s daily routines andactivities.

The research discloses that leaders in the project schools held certain beliefs,values and attitudes. Unlike the other three frames, findings indicated that, inthe symbolic frame, it was not so much what leaders did that was significant butwhat they believed in. Not so much what strategies were used but what normsof behaviour were instituted, and what symbols, rituals and ceremoniesrepresented them. Hence the leadership behaviour in this frame is not reportedas what leaders did to achieve success in their schools, but what beliefs and valueswere held, what attitudes and norms of behaviour were instituted as a result, andwhat symbols, rituals and ceremonies depicted them.

School leaders in this investigation have a deeply held belief thatdisadvantaged children should have full educational opportunities and thatschool arrangements can make this happen.

There’s something about working in an inner city suburban area dominatedby ethnic groups—you can’t help but have an admiration for the way they


88

get on with living. They have a wonderful sense of supporting each other.The staff see that, and think ‘these kids deserve every chance’ and feel ‘it’s myresponsibility to give them my best’ (student welfare coordinator, ClematisSecondary).

The deputy principal at Clematis Secondary saw the leadership of hisschool as:

Trying to do the best job you can taking into account that we’re workingwith migrant working-class students…there’s a strong feeling that these kidsare getting a rough deal in the society and we want to do what we can tohelp them as much as possible…whoever they are we’ll take them in andgive them a go, and the best we can give them is a good education.

There is a strong conviction that schooling can educate these students in waysthat will provide them with greater choice in their future lives, particularly interms of their tertiary education or job opportunities. Supported andencouraged by the principal and other leaders, teachers aim to cater to theindividual needs of their students, be they social, emotional or academic; toorganize their curriculum and school structures accordingly, and to provide thebest possible start for students in their adult life. They are vigilant and united intheir efforts to realize these goals.

We are all striving to equip the kids as best we can, so when they go on topost-primary, when it comes to choices, and when they come to get a job, it’sa job that they have chosen, and not something they have to accept… Everykid gets a chance to do their best. Every child is cared for. All teachers knowall the kids in the school. All children relate to all the teachers in the school.There’s a pretty nice feeling operating between teachers and children (Year5/6 teacher, Kennedia Primary School).

Similarly the coordinator at Boronia West High expresses a shared belief in thewelfare of the whole school community: ‘the welfare of students, of staff and ofparents, plus children in this area.’

Without exception, these types of comments dominated the responses madeto the questions posed of the symbolic frame. Leaders were deeply committed tothe particular needs of a student populations they served, and were prepared tomeet the challenges that this brought. Leaders in the project schools were theguardians and proponents of these shared beliefs. As Nias, et al. (1989:73)indicate, these attitudes ‘arise from and embody a set of social and moral beliefsabout desirable relationships between individuals and the community of whichthey are a part, not from beliefs about epistemology and pedagogy.’ When thestudent welfare coordinator at Clematis Secondary comments, ‘I don’t agree withall the teaching methods of the various people, but I would never doubt their

The Symbolic Frame

89

commitment to doing the best for the kids’, it is clear that social and moral valuesare to the fore, rather than pedagogical ones.

Apart from their deep-seated commitment to social justice issues, leaders inthe project schools held a strong personal conviction to and belief in thedemocratic process. ‘An autocratic approach will not serve these kids,’ commentedthe principal of Clematis Secondary College. ‘Our shared belief is that we have ashared belief; we’re not constrained by the bureaucracy,’ another teacher from thesame school remarked. The integration teacher at Banksia Primary School speaksof ‘a fair go for everybody’. Such strongly held beliefs drive the broader context inwhich the educational agenda sits, providing what Starratt (1991:187) calls ‘anethical environment for the conduct of education’. Clearly there are strongoverlaps here with the structural, human resource and political frames, directedby an underpinning commitment, belief and trust in the democratic process, anopenness and a sense of belonging, and a respect and valuing of all members ofthe school community. In addition, leaders in these urban schools had anoverriding belief that each individual, particularly each individual student, is ofintrinsic worth. A teacher at Boronia West High makes this observation:

People aren’t streamed. Everyone is an equal human being. There’s no betteror worse person than any other person. And they should be given the mostopportunities from their schooling to help them determine where their ownpersonal directions are. It’s not like the old system where they’re graded.They’re not a percentage, they’re human beings. They’re catered for. Theindividualness comes out and is promoted.

Associated with this is the care and commitment of leaders who put students aspeople first, and members of the school second. It is an acknowledgment thatoften social welfare needs of students are greater than educational ones. Theprincipal of Clematis Secondary College elaborates, ‘the academic regime by itselfis not sufficient. The social aspect must be attended to before the academic can takeplace…you’ve got to be tuned to a wider agenda.’ The student welfare coordinatorat Cassinia Secondary College confirms this view:

The amount of work that goes into looking after all the different cultures ofkids is enormous…kids are encouraged from every background to do well.We all give them as much help as we possibly can.

A caring, supportive attitude is interwoven with social justice attitudes. Studentsrespond to school when leaders have their interests at heart, as a Year 9 studentat Boronia West High, who has left home, demonstrates:

When school’s over everyone rushes out. Here we stay till schoolcloses…when you’ve got nowhere to go, if you don’t have a school to go to,where do you go? It’s a tremendous help when you know it’s always there foryou and they’ll do their best for you.


90

Such a school climate is not simply achieved by believing in it. Elements of thestructural, human resource and political frames play a contributing role.Participatory decision-making (structural), acceptance of the individual (humanresource), diffusion of conflict (political), as well as a norm of interpersonalopenness of the symbolic frame are all interwoven to achieve success in schools.Again, it is worth noting the important way in which the structural, humanresource and political frames are inextricably tied to each other via theunderpinning beliefs and values of the symbolic frame.

Comment needs to be made at this point about the turbulent world of urbanschools in Melbourne at the time of this research. In addition to the ongoingcomplexities inherent in the education of students of low socioeconomic,transient, non-English speaking backgrounds, schools were being faced withamalgamation, school closures, staff dislocation, daily changes in schoolmanagement procedures, and the dismantling of school support services.Cassinia Secondary School was closed within nine months of data gathering forthis project. Needless to say, times are tough in these schools and imaginativeand courageous leadership is required. So it needs to be emphasized that thecaring, sharing, and harmonious aspects of a collaborative culture outlined inthese findings are not ones of quaint motherhoodness where caring and sharingtakes the form of a storybook attitude where everything in the garden is rosy, andstaff and children skip off happily at the end of another perfect day! It is not ahappily-ever-after scenario. On the contrary, a context of high drama is often thereality. The symbolic perspective brings real insights to bear in this discussion,because what is of significance here is that when leaders become the keepers andspokespersons of the values, attitudes and beliefs shared by the schoolcommunity, the drama can be identified and better managed. Schools will alwaysbe places of intensity and drama because they are social organizations whosereason for being is grounded in values and higher societal purposes.Understanding the symbolic perspectives will never eliminate the drama, andthat is not the aim; drama, like politics, is inevitable and, when grasped andcomprehended, can be used to advantage. Starratt (1993:41) proposes thatleadership involves the playing of the drama with greater intensity, with greaterrisk, with greater intelligence, with greater imagination, with greater dedicationto making it work.’ It would seem tha successful leaders in the schools had justthese skills and personal attributes something that Fullan and Hargreaves(1991b:9) refer to as ‘personal courage’ and Fullan (1991:29) calls ‘practisingfearlessness’. Drama is certainly a centra part of these schools’ daily milieu, andit is interesting to observe that despite this, and possibly because of it, caring andvaluing of people, fairness and sup port, are all very much part of the embeddedpractices. As well, formal suppor for collegiality is given at the government level,where, amongst other char acteristics, The Schools Council in its 1990publication, Australia’s Teachers An Agenda for the Next Decade, states that ‘goodschools have the staff work ing collegially and sharing in decision making, andthey have a say abou important issues which concern their work’ (SchoolsCouncil, 1990:72).

The Symbolic Frame

91

Symbols, rituals and ceremonies all held a strong place in the culture of theparticipating schools. Symbols of participation and community were present inthe project schools. At Kennedia Primary, for example, leaders ensured thatdocuments were written in every language, as were signs around the school,clearly showing the respect for the ethnicity of the community groups in theschool. Valuing of diversity was symbolized in a painted mural on the schoolwall depicting the diverse multicultural nature of the school community. Foodwas a hallmark of the multicultural background of the Kennedia Primaryschool population with curriculum nights, The Annual General meeting, staffcelebrations, indeed all major events, being celebrated with a shared spread ofethnic specialities prepared by the school families. Staff, too, enjoyed sharingtheir favourite foods around the staff room table at lunchtimes. Food hasbecome a symbol of the school’s culture. At Banksia Primary there was a strongsense of participation and community in the school and this was symbolizedby a beautiful patchwork wall hanging made by the combined efforts of thewhole school community. The principal at Banksia Primary cites thesymbolism of participation, ‘we all own it. We can point to our bit, and we allfeel good about it.’

Interpersonal openness was a powerful feature of the Boronia West HighSchool and leaders in that school community were masters of its practice. Theschool building itself is an embodiment of a close school community, but ofparticular interest, as a symbol of the school’s egalitarian philosophy, is the largecentral meeting hall which forms a focal hub for interaction, and where space isshared jointly between staff and students. There is no exclusive space here forstudents or for staff; no staffroom, no student common room; teachers arereferred to on a first-name basis. The physical arrangements of the schoolbuilding symbolize the educational ideology.

Deal and Kennedy (1982:15) describe the rituals of organizations as elementsin the culture as:

systematic and programmed routines of day-to-day life in the company.In their mundane manifestations—which we call rituals—they showemployees the kind of behaviour that is expected of them. In theirextravaganzas—which we call ceremonies—they provide visible andpotent examples of what the company stands for.

The same can be said of the rituals and ceremonies in the participating schools.On a routine basis the ritual of meeting times set up by leaders enabled staff,students and parents to share in, and be influenced by the school ethos. SchoolCouncil, whole staff meetings, curriculum and faculty committees and StudentRepresentative Council meetings were particularly important. So too was themore informal ritual time spent by staff in the staffroom at breaks, lunchtimesand after school. School assemblies were also significant rituals in Deal andKennedy’s terms as they provided vehicles for the articulation of the school’svalues and beliefs. Leaders in the project schools were attentive to the


92

significance of these rituals, organizing meetings, running assemblies, chattinginformally, and socializing in the times in between. Interpersonal openness wasa norm. All these occasions provided opportunities for infusing the values andbeliefs of the school. In addition, leaders in the schools developed and sustaineda collaborative culture through special celebrations. Festivals, such as themulticultural festival held at Cassinia Secondary, and the centenary celebrationat Banksia Primary brought a focused, demonstration of the values and beliefswhich these schools stand for and so earnestly promote.

The symbolic dimension of the collaborative cultures in the project schoolsbecame operative via the active and overt promotion of specific beliefs, valuesand attitudes promoted by their leaders, and by the symbols, rituals andceremonies which demonstrated them. As a result, norms of behaviour whichembodied these beliefs, values and attitudes were institutionalized into the dailypractice of the schools. Successful leaders striving to develop, maintain andsustain a collaborative culture brought rationality to this otherwise irrationalframe through explicitly identified beliefs and values, the capacity to interactwith others to articulate, reinforce and consummate them in public ceremonialforums, and routine events. This meant that leaders in the project schools wereable to operate on two levels at once—‘on an intellectual level to develop apersonal educational philosophy; and on a practical day-to-day basis, influencingothers by example and action’ (Bolman and Deal, 1991:253).

Collaborative Leadership and School Success—SymbolicFrame

As discussed previously in this chapter, leaders actively communicated adeepseated belief that disadvantaged children should have full educationalopportunities. In actively advancing this belief, leaders were able to gain thecommitment of staff to this end with resulting successful student outcomes. Inthe case of Banksia Primary this was in the form of new approaches to theorganization and support of learning via policies and programs, maximizingthe potential for learning for students. ‘We give them the best possible curriculumactivities we’ve got. The parents are lucky that they’ve got a group of teachers whofor 98% of the time put their children above everything else’ (Year 1/2 classteacher). Clearly there are direct connections here between the beliefs held byleaders in the school and school success. Once again the interrelationshipsbetween the frames is evident. The symbolic element of beliefs is intertwinedwith the human resource elements of cooperation and support with theresulting organizational outcome of staff commitment and institutionalizationof vision.

These interrelationships are described by Susan Moore Johnson, (1990:217):

Individuals who might otherwise pursue personal interests committhemselves to the organization and adopt its principles and purposes,

The Symbolic Frame

93

often giving more than ordinary effort and devising ways to reducediscord, minimize differences, and work cooperatively. They interprettheir contributions and rewards in the light of the organization and itsaccomplishments.

Kennedia Primary cites part of its school’s success as having ‘a commitment tosocial justice issues’ (response to School Profile). Leaders there, as in the otherproject schools, ensure that social justice values are determining the culture oftheir schools, where student populations are dominated by transient, low socio-economic, migrant backgrounds with English as the second language for manystudents.

At Boronia West High School, the tradition of success has been to tackle‘the widening gulf between society and its educational institutions’(Middleton, 1982:60). This tradition has been maintained during its twenty-year history, as the coordinator explains, ‘I’ve been here for ten years and theschool’s changed a lot in ten years, but our local community’s changed a lot too.The school changes all the time. It evolves.’ Integral to Boronia West High’ssuccess has been the capacity of its leaders to respond to change and meet theindividual needs of its students by providing a non-mainstream setting withegalitarian relationships between staff and students. Leadership densityunderpins the organization of the school. No title of ‘principal’ exists. Anelected ‘coordinator’ is the formal leader of the school and decisions are madeby the staff as a whole. In this sense all teachers in the school are leaders. Thisbreadth of leadership which permeates the school results directly in innovationin the curriculum. Staff meet regularly to discuss the needs of each student andintervention in the form of new or modified approaches to programs, orchanges in management or organization of the learning context, takes place.This has resulted in sustained achievement over many years. This translation ofthe values and beliefs held by leaders into the practices of the school hasbrought success. A Year 12 student at Boronia West High explains therelationship between a school environment where leaders show respect forstudents, and its direct link to positive student behaviour and development oflearning, that is, school success:

The lack of respect some teachers have for students generates theimmaturity of students (speaking of her experience at another school).When they do come to this school, they stop being 5-year-olds and startbecoming people—which makes a difference. It not only makes adifference to them but makes a difference to their learning, and, it makesa difference to the class.

It is the beliefs and values held by leaders in these schools and the vigilance withwhich they were translated into the school’s daily activities that resulted insuccess for students, teachers and the organization. For example, an appreciationof diversity was a fundamental value held by leaders in the schools. The Year 5/


94

6 teacher at Kennedia Primary describes the connections between a valuing ofdiversity, curriculum and success:

We’ve got 28 families [in the school] who are Australian. Only 28! …Throughout the school there is a valuing of all those other communities. Imean we who are in the minority [Australians] do value that, and do listento that. And that is a very strong part of the curriculum. But there’s anotherfunny thing to it, that it’s just accepted. I mean I find that the kids inparticular really have got a very good knowledge, considering their age andtheir experience, of different cultures. Also they have got a very, veryaccepting attitude of all those differences. And, you know, we don’t have anyracial problems amongst the school or finger-pointing, or anything like that,and I know that exists in other places… A lot of our curriculum hingesaround differences—I don’t know what it is…it’s just there and itunderwrites everything we do and it just becomes part of your approach tothe kids, and I think people value that.

Valuing diversity and caring for each other extends into the adult domain. Thecaring aspect takes account of each other as professionals. ‘When you tell everyone,“I need help”, everyone helps you,’ explains a young primary teacher fromKennedia Primary School. ‘This is a caring, happy place to come to; a place wherethere is respect,’ commented another member of that school’s staff. School successis achieved when teachers are happy in their work, and when teacher morale ishigh and leads to strong staff commitment. These may be indirect outcomes, butas the staff development coordinator at Clematis Secondary points out, ‘If thestaff are happy, they spend less time fighting and more time on educational issues, likedeveloping the curriculum.’

Direct links can be seen between intrinsic valuing of each individual, studentor staff member and school success at Kennedia Primary where part of thatschool’s success is centred around ‘all members of a diverse school communityworking harmoniously together’ (response to the Kennedia Primary SchoolProfile). The affirmation of leaders in respecting and valuing each individualmember of the school community rubs off on teachers, parents and students,effecting an absence of racial tension and a harmonious school climate, asignificant outcome considering the circumstances facing urban schools (in oneschool there are 17 different nationalities). ‘Teachers take a great deal of pride inthe fact that there is no conflict between the children in the school grounds, or in theclassroom,’ comments the principal of Kennedia Primary School.

Clematis Secondary nominated itself for its success in addressing aparticular problem, namely ‘responding to its community and accommodatingits educational needs’, resulting in outstanding improvements in outcomes inrecent years in the program of the school as a whole. This is evident in theelective system of subjects designed ‘to provide students with a greater sense ofempowerment over their school lives, and a greater commitment to theirstudies by putting the greatest degree of choice about subjects studied in the

The Symbolic Frame

95

hands of students and their families’ (response to School Profile). Inresponding to its community and accommodating its educational needsleaders at Clematis Secondary were directed by the belief that disadvantagedchildren should have full educational opportunities. As a result they instigatedcertain school arrangements, such as student choice in the curriculum whichmaximized their students’ learning. Leaders also ensured that provision wasmade for social welfare support for students acknowledging their special needs,which assisted in developing a climate conducive to learning and adevelopment of educational potential. In these ways the stated school successwas achieved.


Findings of the symbolic frame were drawn from the whole body of datagathered from each of the forty-six interviewees, school documentation andobservation, and categorized into the four frames. What follows are two workedthrough examples of the way in which primary data were transposed into thesuccinct findings listed below. These examples come from the symbolic frame.Each finding was developed via the same process.

Example 1

Primary data Interview response from a Year 5/6 class teacher at Kennedia Primary School:

Every kid gets a chance to do their best. Every child is cared for. All teachersknow all the kids in the school. All children relate to all the teachers in theschool. There’s a pretty nice feeling operating between teachers and children.

Interview response from a Year 9 student at Boronia West High School:

When school’s over everyone rushes out. Here we stay till schoolcloses…when you’ve got nowhere to go, if you don’t have a school to go to,where do you go? It’s a tremendous help when you know it’s always there foryou and they’ll do their best for you.

Interview response by the president of the School Council at Banksia PrimarySchool:

We want to create an environment where kids learn to think and to careabout themselves, other people and property.


96


Leaders in the project schools created an attitude of caring and respect:

Example 2

Primary data

Interview response from the curriculum coordinator at Cassinia SecondaryCollege:

The amount of work that goes into looking after all the different cultures ofkids is enormous…kids are encouraged from every background to do well.We all give them as much help as we possibly can.

Interview response from the deputy Principal Clematis Secondary College:

Trying to do the best job you can taking into account that we’re workingwith migrant working-class students is what we are on about… There’s astrong feeling that these kids are getting a rough deal in the society and wewant to do what we can to help them as much as possible…whoever they arewe’ll take them in and give them a go, and the best we can give them is agood education.

Interview response from the Year 1/2 class teacher at Banksia Primary School:

We give them the best possible curriculum activities we’ve got. The parentsare lucky that they’ve got a group of teachers who for 98% of the time puttheir children above everything else.


Leaders in the project schools were guardians and proponents of a belief thatdisadvantaged children should have full educational opportunities and thatschool arrangements can make this happen.

Findings of the Symbolic Frame

The preceding examples reflect the pattern of responses which repeatedlyemerged from the interviewees. Comments were unprompted and immediate,expressed with clarity and coherence. The consistency of responses over thenearly forty hours of interviews led to a certainty and confirmation of thefollowing generalized findings. As a result of deductive analysis of the aboveprimary data and the understandings gained from the related theory and researchthe following breakdown of findings has been identified.

The Symbolic Frame

97

What is it that leaders do to promote, develop and sustain collaborativecultures in urban schools?

Leaders in the project schools were the guardians and proponents of thefollowing identified shared beliefs and values:

Beliefs

• a belief that disadvantaged children should have full educationalopportunities and that school arrangements can make this happen;

• a belief in the democratic process.

Values

• an intrinsic valuing of each individual; student or staff member;• valuing of diversity;• a valuing of community;• a valuing of participation.


It brings about the institutionalization of the following attitudes and norms:

Attitudes

• acceptance of differences;• caring and respect;• egalitarianism;• inclusiveness;• self-worth.

Norms of:

• interaction;• cooperative/team approach;• mutual support;• staff, student and parent cohesion;• interpersonal openness;• sharing;• commitment/enthusiasm.

Symbols, Rituals and Ceremonies

• Leaders articulated the beliefs and values of the school through symbols,rituals and ceremonies.


The symbolic frame contains the beliefs, values and attitudes of leaders, denotingand directing the fundamental purposes and processes of the school. Through


98

these beliefs, values and attitudes leaders established structures for themanagement and organization of the school, regarded people in certain ways andsaw politics as routine. In a collaborative school culture leaders establisheddemocratic decision-making processes, treated people collegially, and soughtconsensus as a priority. Norms of interaction, cooperation and teamwork,mutual support, interpersonal openness and commitment resulted and theprimary purposes of the school were achieved. Symbols, rituals and ceremoniesbore formal representation of the school’s ideology. Critical to success was theinterplay of the symbolic with the structural, human resource and politicalframes. In the case of the five urban schools in this study, beliefs and valuescentred around a valuing of diversity, an acceptance of the individual, a strongsense of participation and community and a commitment by staff to fullysupport students from disadvantaged backgrounds, socially and academically, sothat the educational potential of each child could be maximized and their lifechoices optimized.

Note

1 In reference to the usage of the term ‘leader’ it must be noted that all interview subjects,whatever their title (for example, class teacher, faculty head, teacher aide) are defined as‘leaders’.

99

Chapter 8

Further Connections

The Hypothesized Causal Links

A most interesting configuration started to present itself as a consequence of theanalysis of the findings reported in the previous four chapters. Reflection on thefindings produced powerful causal connections emerging between collaborativeleadership and student, teacher and organizational outcomes. A constantlyrecurring pattern in the responses, and a consistency over the forty hours ofinterviews, supports the authenticity of these connections. Significantly, theseemerging patterns aligned closely with the findings of the related theory andliterature linking leadership behaviour and school success, discussed in Chapter1. In response to this revelation, I undertook a hypothesizing process to elicitgreater insight into the interconnections between what leaders did in their dailypractice in schools and how this led to achievement of success, the underlyingpremise being that these interrelationships could form the springboard forpredictable pathways to outcomes for students, teachers and the organization.This being the case, some reasonably accurate forecasting of cause and effectrelationships could be made. Importantly, then, leaders in schools could tracktheir leadership actions and behaviour, following them through to theirparticular consequences for students, staff and the organization. Being able to dothis is a significant step in leadership practice, bringing a clear, practical,analytical way of identifying the results of individual leadership on outcomes forthe school. As a result, hypothesized causal links were made and categorized asstructural, human resource, political and symbolic, using the Bolman and Deal(1991) frames. Success was categorized as student, teacher and organizationaloutcomes.

Some examples of this process are listed below:

Example 1

Primary data

It [the teaching and learning approach] helps you to find out who you areas an individual…students take responsibility for themselves in their self-development and their learning…staff are there to assist, not to control.


100

Elements deduced from primary data

• student opportunity for self-expression;• student choice in the curriculum;• staff support for students;• positive student/teacher relations

Leads to the hypothesized structural student outcome

Leadership density ⇒ student empowerment ⇒ climate conducive to learning⇒ development of educational potential.

Example 2

Primary data

It was wonderful to work with enthusiastic people…we really just loved it.We liked the issues we were doing…you’d come out of class and think ‘thatwas a really good lesson.’

Elements deduced from the primary data

• respect for and cooperation with co-workers;• high teacher morale;• belief in curriculum program;• professional satisfaction.

Leads to the hypothesized human resource teacher outcome

Organizational fit ⇒ personal/professional expression ⇒ stimulating practice ⇒high morale ⇒ love of teaching.

Example 3

Primary data

It [the formal democratic decision-making process] doesn’t stop peoplehaving their own cliques or their own interest groups, but it does stop peopleruling through those.


• formal democratic processes;• acknowledgment of informal political network;• monitoring of ‘power-play’ through formal structures.

Further Connections

101

Leads to the hypothesized political organizational outcome

Acceptance of politics as routine ⇒ problems/conflicts seen as inevitable ⇒awareness of the informal political network ⇒ opportunity for the diffusion ofconflict ⇒ good organizational health.

Example 4

Primary data

People aren’t streamed. Everyone is an equal human being. There’s no betteror worse person than any other person. And they should be given the mostopportunities from their schooling to help them determine where their ownpersonal directions are. It’s not like the old system where they’re graded.They’re not a percentage, they’re human beings. They are catered for. Theindividualness comes out and is promoted.


• valuing of each individual student;• belief in maximum opportunities for all students;• curriculum which caters for all students and their needs

Leads to the hypothesized symbolic student outcome

A belief in the intrinsic value of each student ⇒ student self-worth ⇒ climateconducive to learning ⇒ development of student potential.

The significance of such connections is in tracking the consequences of theaction being taken, because from this, predictable patterns of responses emerge.Once these patterns become entrenched they determine the school culture, andknowing what they are likely to be means that leaders can, to a large extent,direct and develop the culture. That is, patterns of responsive behaviour lead tonorms of behaviour which bring positive consequences in terms of structural,human resource, political and symbolic outcomes. Further, one action may setoff a variety of responses and produce multiple outcomes. Leader action cantherefore be surprisingly economical if efforts are focused and pin-point thedesired purpose.

The following section looks at the connections observed from collaborativeleader action taken in the five schools investigated in inner city Melbourne, andthe positive implications which these actions incurred for students, staff and theschool.


102

Hypothesized Causal Links Between the Structural Frameand School Success—Student, Teacher and OrganizationalOutcomes

Student Outcomes—Structural Frame

• Student-focused staff meetings ⇒ individualized curriculum ⇒ climateconducive to learning ⇒ development of educational potential;

• Student-focused staff meetings ⇒ individualized student pastoral care⇒ positive student behaviour ⇒ development of educational potential;

• Whole staff decision-making ⇒ combined staff action ⇒ consistency ofapproach ⇒ clear expectations ⇒ positive student behaviour;

• Whole staff decision-making ⇒ innovative curriculum ⇒ developmentof educational potential;

• Whole staff decision-making ⇒ clarity of teaching purposes ⇒ climateconducive to learning ⇒ engagement in learning;

• Leadership density ⇒ student empowerment ⇒ a climate conducive tolearning ⇒ development of educational potential;

• Leadership density ⇒ student empowerment ⇒ self determination. Here three structural factors contribute directly to positive student outcomes—student-focused staff meetings, whole staff decision-making and leadershipdensity. By instigating these three structural arrangements, student outcomes ofthe development of educational potential, positive behaviour, engagement inlearning, and self-determination are achieved.

In the case of student-focused staff meetings, the individualized understandingand care of students is influential in developing positive behaviour and attitudes tolearning. Knowing each student enables this individualized approach, is gainedthrough staff time expended on the needs of students, both social and academic, inroutine staff meetings. This is in direct contrast to a focus on administrativeprocedures.

Whole-staff decision-making results in similar student outcomes, including anengagement in learning. Combined staff action leads to a consistency of approachwhich gives clear expectations to students across all subjects and year levels resultingin good student behaviour. United action on the part of teachers in terms ofinnovative curriculum development, leads to learning activities and a teaching/learning environment which caters to the particular demands of the student clientele,not to the level of the hypothetical average student. This, in turn, encouragesstudents to take a positive view of themselves as learners, provides a climateconducive to learning and to the development of their educational potential.

Commitment to the concept of leadership density allows for real studentempowerment. Students have a say in their immediate future as far as school isconcerned, for example, in the way play space is organized or in influencing decisionsabout camps or excursions. Any concerns students may have can be addressed through

Further Connections

103

a formal process which legitimizes student participation in decision-making. Valuingstudents’ ideas and suggestions, and providing a spirit of cooperation between staffand students, engenders a climate conducive to learning, resulting in the developmentof educational potential and a genuine feeling in each student that they can reallymake things happen if they want to. This is a considerable achievement given thecomplex nature of the student clientele, many of whom come from backgroundswhich do not lend themselves to active participation in formal decision-makingprocesses either in the educational or broader societal context.

Collaborative structural leadership effects:

• a central focus of using school structures to address and supportstudents’ learning;

• development of educational potential;• engagement in learning;• positive student behaviour;• self-determination.

Just as collaborative structural arrangements bring accomplishment for students,so, too, can they bring successful outcomes for teachers in schools. The followingconnections have been made between effective structural leadership and teachersuccess.

Teacher Outcomes—Structural Frame

• Democratic processes ⇒ staff cooperation ⇒ cohesive staff ⇒ highmorale ⇒ love of teaching;

• Democratic processes ⇒ power of individual to make change ⇒ highstaff morale ⇒ sense of professional satisfaction;

• Democratic meeting procedures ⇒ opportunities for increasing teacherskills ⇒ professional development;

• Democratic selection of roles ⇒ equitable, merit-based appointments⇒ professional respect of leaders ⇒ harmonious staff relationships;

• Democratic selection of roles ⇒ equitable, merit-based appointments⇒ opportunities for broad ranging professional development.

Democratic processes, including democratic meeting procedures and selection ofroles, play an important part in bringing about success for teachers in schools.When the decision-making process cultivates widespread consultation anddiscussion, decisions are reached with full knowledge of staff concerning both theissues involved and the reasons for the decision. Teachers know they have had a fairsay in the arguments put forward and, as such, are likely to cooperate in theimplementation of the decision. The processes which give individual teachers thepower to make change, leads to staff norms of high morale and a sense of professionalsatisfaction.


104

Democratic meeting procedures such as rotation of the Chair and minute-taking, having an open agenda and assisting all staff to become familiar withformal meeting procedures, give opportunities for all teachers to take part in theformal processes of the school and in so doing, increase their professional skills.Democratic processes in the selection of senior staff positions allow forresponsibility to be held by those with the particular skills required at the time,rather than on the basis of seniority. This avoids the ownership of positions ofresponsibility and not only has the effect of the getting the best person for thejob, but also opens up career opportunities to all members of the staff regardlessof their years of experience, leading to the opportunity for broad-rangingprofessional development. Voting by colleagues (rather than the formalhierarchy) determines the appointment. The consequence of this approach isequitable, merit-based appointments, professional respect by teachers for theirleaders and harmonious staff relationships.

Effective structural leadership brings about teacher outcomes of:

• a strongly committed and supportive staff;• broad-ranging professional development;• high teacher morale;• high level of teacher involvement;• a love of teaching.

Great professional benefits to teachers result as a consequence of democraticprocedures operating in schools. Similarly, there are repercussions fororganizational outcomes from the structural perspective.

Organizational Outcomes—Structural Frame

• Vision ⇒ clarity of purpose ⇒ technical culture;• Openness in procedures and processes ⇒ trust and belief in democratic

process ⇒ confidence in decisions ⇒ strong involvement andcommitment;

• Democratic structures ⇒ leadership density ⇒ staff commitment ⇒institutionalization of vision;

• Democratic processes ⇒ a sense of fairness and equity ⇒ acceptance ofmajority decision ⇒ cooperation and support by all sectors of theschool community;

• Democratic processes ⇒ leadership density ⇒ shared decisionmaking⇒ maximum pool of skills/talents ⇒ well-understood, qualitydecisions;

• Democratic structures ⇒ constant flow of information ⇒ soundcommunication;

Further Connections

105

• Democratic organization ⇒ leadership density ⇒ effective wholeschool planning and implementation;

• Democratic selection of roles ⇒ staff commitment ⇒ effectiveness. Clear vision brings clarity of purpose, and, this in turn ensures that the vision translatesinto a technical culture. In other words, the vision constantly directs the school’svaried activity to the central focus of teaching and learning, and the structuralarrangements of the school are deliberately organized to support this. The organizationthen is able to fulfil its central task—to enhance student achievement.

Openness in procedures and processes centres around an open-door policywhich invites and promotes all people to show expressions of interest in schooldecision-making. Democratic processes also promote a sense of fairness andequity which facilitate the acceptance of majority decisions. Trust and belief indemocratic process follow, resulting in a corporate confidence in organizationaldecisions. The knowledge that decisions have been arrived at in a fair andequitable way form a strong base for cooperation, support, involvement andcommitment of all members of the school community.

Democratic structure is characterized by an absence of structural hierarchyand autocratic decision-making. This enables leadership density with widespreadempowerment, as well as representation of all sectors of the school community.What ensues is a firm commitment to the implementation of the organizationalvision which is grounded in the routine activities of the school. In addition,leadership density, facilitated by democratic processes, provides the means forshared decision-making. This, in turn, paves the way for the maximum pool ofskills and talents to be utilized and fed into the decisionmaking process, withresultant sound, well-understood, quality decisions.

A constant flow of information throughout all sectors of the schoolcommunity is provided by the wide representation of democratic structures.Freely shared information from open forums, and access to written material(such as minutes of meetings and drafts of changing school policies) leads tosound communication, which produces effective whole school planning.Democratic selection of roles give encouragement to all to take on positions ofresponsibility, especially when accompanied by strong informal and formalsupport. This creates staff commitment and brings about school effectiveness.

In terms of organizational success, a combination of the above structuralleadership action brings about:

• a technical culture;• strong involvement and commitment;• institutionalization of vision;• co-operation and support by all sectors of the school community;• well-understood, quality decisions;• efficient operating of the school through effective planning;• trust and confidence in the decision-making process;• clear communication and guidelines.


106

Leaders in the participating schools should be cognisant of the formal structureand operations of the school embodied in the structural frame, knowing thatschool success can be achieved when goals are clear and infused into dailyactivities through sound communication, clearly understood democraticdecision-making processes, and well organized and well run meetings. Individualefforts can be directed by formal procedures which guide policies and rules andinstitutionalize the vision of the school. Great store should be put in everyonehaving a fair go’ and sharing roles of responsibility for the health of the school.Democratic processes play a particularly significant role in achieving success inschools, as does the underlying belief of leaders that all children should have fulleducational opportunities and that school arrangements can make this happen.A valuing of interpersonal openness also contributes to a collaborative culture inthe schools and to their success.

Hypothesized Causal links Between the Findings of theHuman Resource Frame and School Success—Student,Teacher and Organizational Outcomes

Student Outcomes—Human Resource Frame

• Commonly held educational philosophy ⇒ cooperative planning/evaluation ⇒ consistent monitoring of programs ⇒ a constantlydeveloping curriculum ⇒ engagement in learning;

• Organizational fit ⇒ professional satisfaction ⇒ continuous teacherlearning ⇒ innovative curriculum ⇒ climate conducive to learning;

• Professional honesty ⇒ sharing of successes/failures ⇒ continuousteacher learning ⇒ development of educational potential for students;

• Organizational fit ⇒ high morale ⇒ love of teaching ⇒ enthusiasticteachers ⇒ climate conducive to learning ⇒ an engagement in learning;

• Task-focused teachers ⇒ teamwork ⇒ cooperative attention to studentneeds ⇒ student social and academic support ⇒ positive studentbehaviour;

• Student-based school culture ⇒ good student/staff relationships ⇒positive student behaviour.

Teachers who have a commonly held educational philosophy combinesuccessfully in their professional work, to jointly undertake cooperative planningand evaluation of teaching and learning activities. This means that consistentmonitoring of programs and a constantly developing curriculum occur. A base ofeducational activity which caters to the needs of students results in engagementin learning. In addition, organizational fit leads to high morale and a love ofteaching. Enthusiastic teachers promote a climate conducive to learning and,once again, result in an engagement in learning for students.

Further Connections

107

Organizational fit occurs when the needs of the organization and those ofindividual staff members are mutually satisfied. In the case of establishing andsustaining a technical culture, organizational fit is dependent on encouraging allstaff to express their professional individuality and particular fortes in theplanning of curriculum. Giving teachers such professional opportunity generatesprofessional satisfaction, which returns to the organization a culture ofcontinuous teacher learning. An innovative curriculum results with the outcomefor students being a climate conducive to learning.

When an atmosphere of openness and a sense of common responsibility forstudents is instituted, staff feel comfortable to discuss their uncertainties andseek shared solutions to concerns or problems. This has the repercussion ofdeveloping professional honesty, where sharing of successes and failures canreadily take place. The consequence of this professional sharing is continuousteacher learning which, in turn, brings about the development of educationalopportunities for students.

Teachers who can put aside personality differences to focus on the task athand operate on the understanding that the interests of the students override theidiosyncrasies of individual staff members. Task-focused teamwork initiatescooperative attention to student needs. This focus instigates social and academicsupport for students and activates positive student behaviour. Moreover, astudent-based school culture promotes good student/staff relationships which,again, promote positive student behaviour.

The specific human resource leadership behaviour discussed above can createconditions for educational success for students. These outcomes are as follows:

• climate conducive to learning;• engagement in learning;• development of educational potential for students;• positive student behaviour.

Teacher Outcomes—Human Resource Frame

• Organizational fit ⇒ professional confidence ⇒ positive mood/high

morale ⇒ professional development/continuous learning ⇒ increasedteacher skills;

• Organizational fit ⇒ personal/professional expression ⇒ stimulatingpractice ⇒ high morale ⇒ love of teaching;

• Mutual respect and acceptance ⇒ cooperative teacher learning ⇒professional stimulation ⇒ on-going school-based professionaldevelopment;

• Formal/informal support ⇒ staff cohesiveness/camaraderie ⇒ highmorale;


108

• Team planning/support ⇒ shared responsibility/workload ⇒professional development.

Organizational fit brings twofold benefits to teachers in schools. It leads directlyto personal and professional expression which creates a climate for stimulatingpractice, resulting in high morale and a love of teaching. It also serves to buildprofessional confidence which leads to a positive mood, which encouragesprofessional development and continuous learning by teachers. High morale isproduced by staff cohesiveness, and a sense of camaraderie is brought aboutthrough formal and informal support. Leaders can establish a formal expectationthat staff will help each other, giving approval to an informal and a formal,network of support. This can be achieved through a great deal of informalreinforcing talk, and by encouraging a working environment of mutual support,professional acceptance and continuous learning. Mutual respect and acceptanceby colleagues instigate cooperative teacher learning. Cooperative teacher-learning fosters professional stimulation, which leads to on-going school-basedprofessional development. Professional development is similarly generated byteam planning and support and the comfort of shared responsibility andworkload.

Effective human resource leadership brings about the following outcomes forteachers:

• a stimulating professional atmosphere;• continuous learning;• increased teacher skills;• love of teaching;• high teacher morale;• a cohesive staff group;• a formal and informal support network.

Organizational Outcomes—Human Resource Frame

• Organizational fit ⇒ cooperation/commitment ⇒ institutionalizationof vision;

• Organizational fit ⇒ personal/professional expression ⇒ stimulatingpractice ⇒ love of teaching ⇒ sustaining technical culture;

• Organizational fit ⇒ personal/professional satisfaction ⇒ high morale⇒ sound organizational health;

• Organizational fit ⇒ personal/professional expression ⇒ stimulatingpractice ⇒ high morale ⇒ hard work/commitment;

• Formal/informal support ⇒ cooperation/commitment ⇒institutionalization of vision/sound organizational health;

• Staff-centred administrative arrangements ⇒ opportunities to operatecooperatively ⇒ team approach ⇒ effective management;

Further Connections

109

• Mutual respect and acceptance ⇒ cooperative teacher learning ⇒sustaining culture of continuous teacher learning.

Human resource leadership should make a concerted attempt to match the needsof individuals with the needs of the school as an organizational whole. In thisway the full potential and abilities of school community members will berealized, and their collective capacities will form the driving force behindachieving the educational vision and goals of the school. Leaders in schools whoseek out the skills and talents of school community members and match these toroles and responsibilities assist in achieving organizational fit. Similarly, leaderswho respond to the needs of individuals and align these appropriately with rolesand responsibilities in their school, will generate cooperation and commitment,which, in turn, grounds the vision into daily practice. As well, organizational fitallows for professional expression and satisfaction, which cultivates stimulatingpractice, resulting in a love of teaching and the sustaining of a technical culture.Personal and professional satisfaction also breeds high morale, which motivateshard work and commitment, and is directly responsible for sound organizationalhealth. Staff-centred administrative arrangements give opportunities to operatecooperatively, effecting a team approach which produces effective management.Mutual respect and acceptance, characterized by leaders who have a deep-seatedbelief in the intrinsic value of each individual member of staff, give opportunitiesfor cooperative teacher learning, which respectively sustains a culture ofcontinuous teacher learning. As a result, human resource leadership can produceorganizational outcomes of:

• institutionalization of vision;• sustaining technical culture;• sound organizational health;• hard work/commitment;• effective management;• continuous teacher learning.

Through the human resource frame, leaders can bring success for their students,staff and school, by focusing on the needs and skills of the people in theorganization. Students must be a primary focus, with emphasis being given toserving the social welfare needs of students as well as their educational ones.Curriculum can be designed to cater to the particular needs of students and willbe generally innovative as a result, and at the cutting edge of professionalpractice. In addition to student needs, teachers’ professional needs should begiven a high priority, knowing that teachers are able to work best when theirprofessional needs are met, and when they have support and encouragement todevelop as competent and valued staff members. An opendoor policy encouragesparents to be actively involved. Schools can gauge their success against the extentto which they respond to the needs of their diverse school communities, andhave the capacity to bring everyone together in a spirit of sharing and harmony.


110

Hypothesized Causal Links Between the Findings of thePolitical Frame and School Success—Student, Teacher andOrganizational Outcomes

Student Outcomes—Political Frame:

• Promotion of democratic processes ⇒ wide representation ⇒ sharing ofpower ⇒ a sense of empowerment ⇒ positive behaviour;

• Promotion of democratic processes ⇒ wide representation ⇒ sharing ofpower ⇒ participation in, and experience of, the democratic process;

• Promotion of democratic processes ⇒ wide representation ⇒leadership responsibility;

• Promotion of democratic processes ⇒ opportunities to express personalopinions ⇒ personal growth;

• Promotion of democratic processes ⇒ opportunities to share the ideasof others ⇒ development of cooperative learning skills;

• Open, honest communication ⇒ respect for and valuing of others’point of view ⇒ sharing of ideas ⇒ shared problem-solving ⇒innovation in the curriculum;

• Agreed-upon political behaviour ⇒ creation of coalitions based onissues (rather than personalities) ⇒ positive political influence ⇒harmonious learning environment.

Leaders who promote democratic processes create significant and multipleoutcomes for students in their schools. Wide representation throughparticipatory processes institutes the sharing of power and leads to a sense ofempowerment in students, which results in positive behaviour. Widerepresentation and the sharing of power also enable participation in, andexperience of, the democratic process and can bring leadership responsibility.Promotion of democratic processes fosters opportunities to express personalopinions and to facilitate personal growth. It also provides opportunities to sharethe ideas of others and contributes to the development of cooperative learningskills. Open, honest communication develops a climate of trust and encouragesstaff to express their opinions freely, leading to an environment where problemsare shared and solved with colleagues. In fostering active participation by allsections of the school community in the decision-making processes, leadersshould identify agreed-upon political behaviour, including the creation ofcoalitions based on issues (rather than personalities). This brings about positivepolitical influence, which leads to a harmonious learning environment.

So, politically astute leadership results in the following outcomes for students:

• positive behaviour;• participation in, and experience of, the democratic process;• leadership responsibility;• personal growth;

Further Connections

111

• development of cooperative learning skills;• innovation in the curriculum;• harmonious learning environment.

Teacher Outcomes—Political Frame

• Agreed-upon political behaviour ⇒ disagreements not seen as disruptive⇒ diffusion of conflict ⇒ harmonious working relationships;

• Agreed-upon political behaviour ⇒ disagreements not seen asdisruptive ⇒ diffusion of conflict ⇒ staff cohesion ⇒ high morale ⇒staff commitment/enthusiasm;

• Promotion of democratic processes ⇒ wide representation ⇒ sharing ofauthority ⇒ shared responsibility ⇒ professional satisfaction;

• Promotion of democratic processes ⇒ wide representation ⇒opportunities to express opinions ⇒ harmonious working atmosphere;

• Fair and equitable decision-making ⇒ agreement via consensus/vote ⇒acceptance of decisions ⇒ lack of dissension ⇒ harmony;

• Fair and equitable decision-making ⇒ agreement via consensus/ vote ⇒acceptance of decisions ⇒ staff cohesion ⇒ high morale/job satisfaction;

• Open, honest communication ⇒ respect for and valuing of others’point of view ⇒ sharing of ideas ⇒ informed decisions/professionalstimulation;

• Information accessible to all ⇒ trust in the processes ⇒ harmony ⇒cohesive staff;

• Accessibility ⇒ of information/forums ⇒ opportunity for negotiation/compromise ⇒ sense of trust ⇒ satisfaction that the system is fair ⇒high morale/professional satisfaction.

Leaders in schools see political processes as part of everyday school life and exerta positive influence in an informal way by lobbying for outcomes which willadvance the educational agenda. Agreed-upon political behaviour accepts thatdisagreements are inevitable and are not seen as disruptive. This leads todiffusion of conflict and creates more harmonious working relationships.Similarly, agreed-upon political behaviour where disagreements are not seen asdisruptive, diffuses conflict, leading to staff cohesion, high morale, and staffcommitment/enthusiasm follows.

Promotion of democratic processes has the effect of sharing of authoritythrough widespread representation which provides the means for sharedresponsibility and ensuing professional satisfaction. Promotion of democraticprocesses furthers opportunities to express opinions which gives rise to aharmonious working atmosphere. Based on a satisfaction that the system is fair,decision-making facilitates agreement being reached via consensus or majorityvote. This consultative process leads to an acceptance of decisions, a lack ofdissension and resulting harmony. As well, where there is acceptance of decisions


112

on the basis of fair and equitable decision-making, staff cohesion is strong andhigh morale and job satisfaction result.

Leaders can lead by example in modelling an openness and honesty inpresenting points of view. Open, honest communication which respects, andvalues others’ points of view, provides for the sharing of ideas, which leads toinformed decisions and ensuing professional stimulation.

Leaders who ensure all information is accessible to all build trust in thedecision-making processes. Trust gives rise to harmony and the creation of acohesive staff. Accessibility of information through open meetings or forumsmaximizes the opportunity for negotiation and compromise before decisions arereached, developing a sense of trust and a satisfaction that the system is fair. Highmorale and professional satisfaction flourish under these conditions.

Teacher outcomes of effective political leadership are:

• harmonious working relationships;• staff commitment/enthusiasm;• professional satisfaction;• high morale/job satisfaction;• professional stimulation;• cohesive staff.

Organizational Outcomes—Political Frame

• Acceptance of politics as routine ⇒ problems/conflict seen as inevitable⇒ development of formal political processes ⇒ sense of trust ⇒ goodorganizational health;

• Awareness of the informal political network ⇒ opportunity fordiffusion of conflict ⇒ good organizational health;

• Promotion of democratic processes ⇒ wide representation ⇒ wellthought through decisions;

• Promotion of democratic processes ⇒ wide representation ⇒ strongcommunication;

• Promotion of democratic processes ⇒ wide representation ⇒ greatercoordination/planning;

• Fair and equitable decision-making ⇒ acceptance of decisions ⇒ strongcommitment to the implementation of decisions;

• Creation of open forums for discussion ⇒ public defence of views ⇒open, honest communication ⇒ avoidance of self-interest ⇒satisfaction that the system is fair ⇒ good organizational health.

Leaders who hold the belief that politics in the school is routine, see problemsor conflict as inescapable. In order to address problems or conflicts at the schoollevel, formal political processes which are clearly understood to all are put intoplace to ensure a just resolution is achieved. Trust in the administrative

Further Connections

113

procedures eventuates, and good organizational health ensues. In addition,astute political leaders take careful account of the informal politics in theorganization and seize the opportunity to negotiate the underground politicalnetwork to diffuse conflict to bring about good organizational health.

Promotion of democratic processes in the political arena has a threefold effect.Through widespread representation it brings about well thought throughdecisions, strong communication and greater coordination and planning.

Open forums, where points of view are defended publicly, avoid selfinterestand negative manipulation of the decision-making process. Accordingly, fair andequitable decision-making takes place, with a resulting acceptance of decisions.What follows as a consequence, is a strong commitment to the implementationof decisions, a satisfaction that the system is fair and good organizational health.

Effective political leadership brings about significant outcomes for the school:

• good organizational health;• well thought through decisions;• strong communication;• greater coordination and planning;• a stronger commitment by staff, student and parents to the

implementation of decisions. Focusing on the political frame, leaders recognize the need to concentrate on politicalrelations and how they operate in the school, displaying a willingness to face anddeal with conflicts and deliberately exercise their moral authority to stand up for,and take action over, what they believe in, when competing or conflicting valuespresented themselves in the school community. Democratic processes are helddear in achieving fair and just outcomes, and leaders promote empowerment andactive participation across the school community. Legitimate political behaviour issupported through fair and equitable school-based procedures, decisions beingreached by consensus or majority vote. Attitudes of egalitarianism, inclusivenessand openness prevail, furthering the development of a collaborative culture, which,in turn, brings success to the schools in terms of a cohesive community characterizedby positive relations and facilitation of a strong focus on teaching and learning.

Hypothesized Causal Links Between the Symbolic Frame andSchool Success—Student, Teacher and OrganizationalOutcomes

Student Outcomes—Symbolic Frame

• a belief that disadvantaged children should have full educationalopportunities ⇒ special school arrangements ⇒ social welfare supportprograms ⇒ development of educational potential;


114

• an attitude of caring and respect by staff ⇒ modelling of norms ofbehaviour ⇒ an attitude of caring and respect in students;

• an attitude of acceptance of differences ⇒ modelling of norms ofbehaviour ⇒ a student attitude of acceptance of differences;

• a belief in the intrinsic value of each individual student ⇒ student self-worth ⇒ climate conducive to learning ⇒ development of studentpotential;

• valuing of diversity ⇒ acceptance of differences ⇒ an absence of racialtension ⇒ climate conducive to learning;

• value of interpersonal openness ⇒ egalitarian approach by staff ⇒mutual acceptance and respect ⇒ climate conducive to learning ⇒engagement in learning.

When there is a strongly held belief that disadvantaged children should have fulleducational opportunities, people in schools will put into place special schoolarrangements to make this happen. Such arrangements often take the form ofsocial welfare support programs, for many students in inner city schools aretroubled with social and emotional needs which must necessarily take priorityover educational ones. Children who are hungry or homeless, for instance, areunlikely to embrace the complexities of learning until the urgency of theirimmediate physical and emotional concerns are met. If schools are prepared totake on a social welfare role, they are more likely to keep these students in theschool, and thereby provide opportunities for the development of theireducational potential. Modelling by staff of care and respect for students leads tonorms of behaviour in the school which develop an attitude of caring and respectin students themselves. The same goes for an attitude of acceptance ofdifferences, where once again, modelling by teachers and others in the schoolcommunity engenders a student culture where an attitude of acceptance ofdifferences becomes the norm.

Closely aligned to acceptance of difference is a fundamental belief in theintrinsic value of each individual student. Valuing the individual leads to studentself-worth. Students who have high self-esteem are able to see themselves assuccessful learners and this develops their educational potential. Valuing ofinterpersonal openness means that an egalitarian approach is adopted by staff,creating a relationship between teachers and students of mutual acceptance andrespect, which in turn, effects a climate conducive to learning and engagementin learning by students.

Valuing diversity leads to acceptance of differences, which directly resultsin an absence of racial tension. In a multicultural school setting where manycultural groups are living and learning under the one roof this is a highlydesirable outcome, as the harmonious environment which emanates froma valuing of diversity provides a climate which can focus directly on learning,rather than having to deal with negative behaviour associated with racism.

Overall, there is a significant connection between the values and attitudes

Further Connections

115

demonstrated in the school and student success. Resulting outcomes for studentsare listed below:

• development for educational potential;• an attitude of caring and respect by students;• a student attitude of acceptance of differences;• a climate conducive to learning;• an engagement in learning.

Teacher Outcomes—Symbolic Frame

• a shared belief that disadvantaged children should have full educationalopportunities ⇒ combined staff action ⇒ high staff morale/jobsatisfaction;

• a belief in the intrinsic value of each individual member of staff ⇒mutual support and respect ⇒ high morale ⇒ love of teaching;

• valuing of diversity ⇒ acceptance of differences expressing of individu-ality ⇒ satisfaction of needs;

• value of interpersonal openness ⇒ staff interaction ⇒ reinforcement ofbeliefs and values ⇒ sustaining of a collaborative staff culture;

• valuing of diversity ⇒ acceptance of differences ⇒ an absence of racialtension ⇒ harmonious working relationships.

Teachers who share a belief that disadvantaged children should have fulleducational opportunities can collectively take staff action to implement theirbelief in practice. In achieving their goal, high staff morale results and jobsatisfaction ensues. A belief in the intrinsic value of each individual member ofstaff brings mutual support and respect, again producing high morale, which inturn effects a love of teaching. Valuing of diversity brings an acceptance ofdifferences, which allows expression of individuality, with the outcome ofsatisfying professional needs. Interpersonal openness fosters staff interaction,providing reinforcement of shared beliefs and values, and this results in thesustaining of a collaborative staff culture. Valuing of diversity in both staff andstudents leads to a school culture which accepts difference. This leads toharmonious working relationships void of racial tension.

Causal connections of the symbolic frame clearly bring success for teachers.They are as follows:

• high staff morale;• job satisfaction;• love of teaching;• satisfaction of needs;• sustaining of a collaborative staff culture;• harmonious working relationships.


116

Organizational Outcomes—Symbolic Frame

• a belief that disadvantaged children should have full educational

opportunities ⇒ extensive educational support ⇒ cooperative teamapproach ⇒ institutionalization of vision;

• an attitude of caring and respect by staff ⇒ modelling of norms ofbehaviour ⇒ an attitude of caring and respect in whole school commu-nity ⇒ institutionalization of values and beliefs ⇒ sustaining ofcollaborative culture;

• an attitude of caring and respect by staff ⇒ modelling of norms ofbehaviour ⇒ an attitude of caring and respect in whole school commu-nity;

• a belief that disadvantaged children should have full educationalopportunities ⇒ special school arrangements ⇒ social welfare supportprograms ⇒ sound organizational health;

• value of interpersonal openness ⇒ egalitarian approach by staff ⇒mutual acceptance and respect ⇒ cohesive staff/student/parent com-munity;

• value of interpersonal openness ⇒ interaction/socializing ⇒ reinforce-ment of shared beliefs/values ⇒ institutionalization of vision;

• Symbols/rituals/ceremonies ⇒ reinforcement of shared beliefs/values⇒ institutionalization of vision.

Institutionalization of vision refers here to the ability of leaders to organize andoperate their schools in such a way that strongly held values and beliefs arereflected in the day to day pursuits of the school. In other words, practising whatyou preach becomes the norm. So often in schools the rhetoric is understood,accepted and even articulated, but there is a notable absence of it in reality.Institutionalization of vision is the leadership capacity to firmly establish visionin practice, making the critical difference to achieving school success.

In the project schools the predominant driving tenet was that disadvantagedchildren should have full educational opportunities. This belief leads to twodistinct outcomes as far as the organization is concerned—institutionalizationof vision and sound organizational health. Holding the belief thatdisadvantaged children should have full educational opportunities leads to theprovision of extensive educational support. This generates a cooperative teamapproach with staff working closely together as a team in the interests of thestudents, which in turn translates the vision into practice. As well, this beliefsafeguards the needs of disadvantaged students by making special schoolarrangements through social welfare support programs. With the social welfareof needs of students attended to, teachers, as well as students, are better ableto get on with the primary purposes of teaching and learning leading to soundorganizational health.

Modelling an attitude of caring and respect by staff leads to norms of

Further Connections

117

behaviour in which there is caring and respect for all members of the schoolcommunity. It also brings about the institutionalization of values and beliefswhich sustain a collaborative culture. This may take the form of interpersonalopenness where an egalitarian approach by staff leads to mutual acceptance andrespect of all school community members, resulting in a cohesive staff, studentand parent community. Valuing interpersonal openness promotes interactionand socializing, which has the consequence of reinforcing shared beliefs andvalues, which once again produces institutionalization of vision. Symbols, ritualsand ceremonies which are carefully orchestrated by school leaders reinforceshared beliefs and values and also positively impacting on the institutionalizingof the vision of the school.

In various connections and cross connections symbolic elements lead to thefollowing successful outcomes for the school as an organization:

• institutionalization of vision;• sustaining of collaborative culture;• an attitude of caring and respect in whole school community;• sound organizational health;• cohesive staff/student/parent community.

Leaders attaining success for their schools work through the symbolic frame of theorganizational life of the school, knowing that students, teachers and parents aresignificantly influenced by the beliefs, values, routines and conventions, explicit orimplicit, in the practice of school activities. The symbolic frame is immersed inbeliefs, values, attitudes and norms of behaviour, which are represented throughsymbols, rituals and ceremonies and are interwoven through the structural, humanresource and political frames. In school communities, specific beliefs, values,attitudes and norms of behaviour are fervently held by the majority of leaders.Fundamental to the leaders’ behaviour and endeavours, are the identification ofthose beliefs, in the case of this study it was a belief that disadvantaged childrenshould have full educational opportunities and that school arrangements can makethis happen. There was also a further belief in the intrinsic value of each individual—student, staff member or parent. A valuing of diversity, an acceptance of differencesand a regard for interpersonal openness permeate the attitudes of people in theschools in this investigation. Success is achieved by effectively reacting to thedistinctive social and educational needs of their urban clientele, providing studentswith optimum opportunities to gain personal choice and fulfilment in their adultlives.

Summary

The linking process of cause and effect is a valuable one. It extricates very specificfeatures from the concentrated richness of each frame, and, importantly, allowspathways to be constructed which follow a route created by each foregoing


118

factor. Each step along the way is initiated by its predecessor, often with differentpaths verging off from the same beginnings, providing multiple outcomes fromone source. This has deep significance for leaders in schools, for it means thatthere is a certain predictability within the irrationality of organizational life,which can be tapped to bring a degree of success to students, teachers and theorganization.


During the process of specifically identifying the hypothesized causal links leadingto student, teacher and organizational success, it became apparent that otherconfigurations of relationships might be occurring. Consequently, a synthesis ofthe hypothesized causal links was undertaken outside the four frames. Eachhypothesized causal link was individually sorted, disregarding the frames, intoseveral emerging but distinct patterns. A distillation of the causal links was thuseffected, bringing valuable insights as to what it is that constitutes the heart ofthe collaborative milieu, and what it is in essence that brings about school success.Four dominant factors (outside the Bolman and Deal typology) were apparent.They are as follows:

• development of the educational potential of students;• professional development of teachers;• good organizational health;• institutionalization of vision.

These four critical factors form a synthesis of the sum and substance of thehypothesized causal links and are summarized below.

Development of the Educational Potential of Students

The developing of educational potential for students centres around three corefactors—positive student behaviour, a climate conducive to learning and aninnovative curriculum designed to meet student needs. Positive behaviourincludes caring and respect for fellow students, a student attitude of acceptanceof differences and a developing of cooperative learning skills such as listening toand respecting the opinions of others. These attitudes and skills have directimplications for positive discipline in the school, where, together with consistentexpectations from staff, cooperation is encouraged and unacceptable behaviourwhich might disrupt or inhibit learning is minimized. Moreover, empowermentof students brings opportunities for personal growth and leadershipresponsibility, as well as for choice in the curriculum, which in turn facilitateengagement in learning.

Closely aligned to positive student behaviour is the development of a climate

Further Connections

119

conducive to learning, where open and approachable relationships between staffand students lead to mutual acceptance and respect. A belief in the intrinsicvalue of each student produces a feeling of self-worth, a positive approach tolearning and a development of educational potential. As well special schoolarrangements such as social welfare and support programs advance the academiclearning environment for students in urban schools.

An innovative curriculum which is constantly developing clarity of teachingpurposes, cooperative curriculum planning and evaluation all contribute tomeeting the individual needs of students. Student-focused staff meetings play animportant role in catering for students whether it be with regard toindividualized pastoral care or individualized curriculum.

Thus, positive student behaviour, a climate conducive to learning and aninnovative curriculum designed to meet student needs all play a critical role indeveloping the educational potential of urban students.

Professional Development of Teachers

Organizational fit, continuous teacher learning, and professional satisfaction anda love of teaching have direct impact on the professional development ofteachers. Organizational fit allows for personal and professional expressionwhich brings about professional stimulation and satisfaction. In addition, abelief in the intrinsic value of each individual staff member leads to mutualsupport and respect. This flows on to continuous teacher learning which isachieved through teacher empowerment, shared responsibility, cooperativeplanning and the sharing of ideas. Both organizational fit and continuousteacher learning jointly lead to professional satisfaction and a love of teaching.This, in conjunction with democratic, merit-based appointments, enhances theprofessional development of teachers.

Good Organizational Health

Good organizational health is generated via a technical culture, harmoniousrelationships and effective management. Technical culture refers to theorganizational focus of teaching and learning as the school’s raison d’etre,bringing clarity of purpose and a clear direction to the operation of the school.Harmonious relationships across the school community cultivate a cordial,congenial and supportive working environment for students, staff and schoolcommunity members, producing cohesion and high morale. Effectivemanagement leads to well-understood, quality decisions, strongcommunication, and whole school coordination and planning. Together, atechnical culture, harmonious relationships and effective management providethe key ingredients in creating good organizational health.


120

Institutionalization of Vision

Shared beliefs, leadership density, and commitment, cooperation and supportare pivotal to the institutionalization of vision. Beliefs which are shared bring acommon purpose and underpinning of the daily practices of the school.Moreover, if these shared beliefs are accompanied by shared power and bona fideresponsibility, a spread of leadership saturates the organization so that leadersacross many roles are committed to implementing the shared purposes or vision.It is not sufficient, in achieving success in schools, to have shared vision withoutthe accompanying depth of leadership necessary to translate it into practice.Leadership density with its breadth of leadership and wide representationenables a collective reinforcing of the guiding values and attitudes of the school.When beliefs are shared amongst the members of the school community, andwhen a density of leadership is present, then the vision of the school is poised tobecome institutionalized. Significantly however, for institutionalization of visionto occur, cooperation, support and commitment must accompany shared beliefsand leadership density.

In the process of isolating these four fundamental understandings from theaggregated hypothesized causal connections, it becomes clear that each of thefour is intimately related to each other and the connections and crossconnections between them appear limitless. For example, harmoniousrelationships are interrelated to positive student behaviour and to cooperationand support, and to professional satisfaction; innovation in the curriculum isinterdependent with continuous teacher learning and a technical culture; andhigh morale is entwined with a climate conducive to learning and to cooperationand commitment. What is of significance here is that the four demonstrableoutcomes which generate a collaborative culture are inextricably linked andinterdependent. It could be said, therefore, that where all four outcomes arepresent and operate simultaneously, a fully functioning collaborative culture hasbeen established.

121

Chapter 9

Issues and Reflections

Leaders and Collaborative Cultures

Leaders are able to achieve success in their schools when they can simultaneouslycomprehend, interpret and capitalize on four frames of reference—structural,human resource, political and symbolic (Bolman and Deal, 1991), drawing onthe particular insights and understandings which each conveys. Unlike the viewof some writers (Johnson, 1990; Schein, 1985), the position taken in this bookis that leadership forces of a school culture are not restricted to the symbolicdimension alone. ‘Culture’ as it is defined here, embraces the four overarchingperspectives of structural, human resource, political and symbolic dimensions.All have influence, all have commensurate insights to bring to bear, all areequivalent parts which collectively complete the whole.

Susan Moore Johnson (1990:218) argues that preference should be given toshaping cultural bonds (‘symbolic aspects of shared purposes, values, traditionsand history’) over ‘rational bonds’ (‘rules, roles, functions, penalties and formalauthority that specify and regulate the behaviour of individuals in organizations’)if schools are to be effective. Her argument gives strong preference to thesymbolic aspects of leadership, over the structural ones. Both Schein andJohnson seem to be suggesting that symbolic aspects should take on a higherpriority and prominence, or somehow be favoured over other leadership forces.In Johnson’s case, this view is based on the premise that ‘rationalbonds…presume reluctance and dissent rather than commitment and accord.’The findings of the structural frame presented in this book would suggestotherwise (Page 55). Contrary to attitudes of reluctance and dissent, causallinkages between the structural frame and school success are characterized byhigh morale, staff commitment, active participation, cooperation and supportby all sectors of the school community. Schein appears to be arguing thatsymbolic aspects are such powerful forces, and have such far-reachingrepercussions, that leaders should give preference to them above all else. Whilstthe importance of the symbolic frame is not doubted for itself, I take the viewthat structural, or indeed, human resource or political aspects, are equivalentlyimportant. Schein’s broad view of organizational culture would seem to be outof kilter with the prevailing theory and research, outlined in Chapter 1,particularly with Sergiovanni’s forces of leadership (p. 12) and his contentionthat all forces need to be present if leadership is to grow from competence to


122

excellence. Schein’s position also runs counter to the Bolman and Deal (1991)thesis which emphasizes that all four frames of reference are required to capturethe full complexities of organizational leadership. Perhaps Schein and Johnson’sviews take a short-sighted, narrow approach which the Bolman and Deal modelurges us to be wary of. It is the power to reframe, to take conscious account ofall leadership perspectives which will be vital to success.

In contrast to Schein (1985) and Johnson (1990), I would argue that all fourperspectives—structural, human resource, political, and symbolic—areinterwoven in such a way that each separate dimension contributes to furtherenhance the other, with the collective result a complex, but amplifiedamalgamation. What this means is that all four dimensions of leadership combineand intertwine to yield the full complexity of the leadership milieu. Any onedimension which is overlooked or disregarded will leave the picture incomplete, andleadership wanting.

Following this reasoning, any form of leadership (autocratic, benevolentdictatorship, democratic) incorporates the four frames advocated by Bolman andDeal (1991). What distinguishes one leadership approach from anotherconceptually, and gives it its unique style and character, are the specific elementswhich are peculiar to it. Of particular interest in this discussion are the elementsin each frame which form the basis of collaborative leadership.

The participating schools in this project, to a greater or lesser extent, werecharacterized by collaborative elements. Where a balance of all frames waspresent, fully-functioning collaborative leadership was operating. The findingsindicate that at Kennedia Primary School, Clematis Secondary College andBoronia West High School strong collaborative leadership, across the schoolcommunity, pervaded the day-to-day activities of the school.

Collaboration and School Success

In these schools, democratic processes and leadership density were activelycultivated by the principal and teacher, student and parent leaders. Roles andresponsibilities were shared. Coordination and planning followed well-definedguidelines and policies, and programs were arrived at through clear, wellcommunicated, shared processes. Frank, open and frequent communicationprevailed, as did a respect and valuing for the opinions and viewpoints ofothers.

The centrality of teaching and learning was an integrating priority for leadersin these schools. To achieve the best for students, best practice was a continualgoal. Cooperative teacher learning provided a base of mutual support and aspringboard for professional challenge. Continuous learning and improvementwere nurtured through support, acceptance, professional honesty and sharing.People worked in teams or workgroups, combining their expertise andexperience to achieve their goals. Positive student/staff relationships, staffcohesion and a strong sense of community were apparent.


123

Leaders developed a school climate characterized by an absence of hierarchy.Participatory decision-making brought a sense of fairness to school processes,with accompanying opportunities to redress inequities and ensure alignmentwith the values and vision of the school. Power-sharing was actively promoted,through agreed-upon political behaviour. Coalitions and interest groups formedaround issues, rather than individuals. Networks were established betweencluster schools. Consensus was sought, diffusing conflict and the negative aspectsof informal influence. There was an understanding that disagreements overissues were inevitable. Disputes were not seen as disruptive, but structures andprocesses needed to be firmly in place to ensure fair and just decisions. Authoritywas used to safeguard the beliefs and values of the school and to exert a positiveinfluence.

Leaders held certain beliefs and values which guided the daily practice of theseschools. An underpinning belief that disadvantaged children should have fulleducational opportunities, and that school arrangements could make thishappen, was complemented by a deep-seated belief in the intrinsic value of eachindividual, student or staff member. There was a valuing of diversity and anacceptance of interdependence, an acceptance of the individual, and a high valueplaced on interpersonal openness. Attitudes of acceptance of differences, caringand respect, egalitarianism, inclusiveness and self-worth predominated. Normsof openness, interaction, socializing, cooperation and teamwork, mutualsupport, cohesion, professional pride and satisfaction in the job, andcommitment and enthusiasm typified the way in which the administrators,teachers and students conducted themselves in their workplaces.

At Banksia Primary a collaborative culture was developing well, with many ofthe above elements institutionalized into the school culture. The leadershipprocess of transforming the school culture to a collaborative one, needs time totake shape, and requires the commitment, not just of the principal, but across abreadth of leadership in the school.

Developing, maintaining and sustaining a collaborative culture takes time,and takes a good deal of effort from a good many people. Clematis Secondary,Kennedia Primary and Boronia West High Schools have achieved this. BanksiaPrimary School is in transition. At Cassinia Secondary College a collaborativeculture had not been established. Whilst steps forward had been made inrestoring the rift between the two staffs from the former technical and highschools, however, strong divisions were still evident. Although amongst somefaculty groups a shared ideology existed, there was an absence of shared vision byall staff members. A perceived lack, by some members of staff, of articulation andcommunication of the vision of the school left people unsure of the direction inwhich the school was heading. ‘We don’t really know the philosophy of where theschool wants to go—no school goals are written down,’ commented one teacher.Aspects of each of the frames were present, such as the centrality of teaching andlearning, support for students, networking with cluster schools, however theabsence of many other factors left the culture weak. It is worth reflecting as towhy this might be so.


124

Judith Warren Little (1986:84ff ) noted that schools where collaborativecultures exist are rare, and Firestone and Wilson (1985:7ff ) point out that schoolcultures are typically weak. Johnson (1990:149ff ) suggests a number of reasonsfor this. First, the double-sided responsibilities it entails, ‘the short-term task ofteaching students day-to-day and the long-term task of broadly educating them’.Johnson suggests the ‘tension is considerable’ between the two. The secondreason comes from the organizational arrangements within the school such as‘withholding time, encouragement and responsibility’. Third, from teachersthemselves who choose to operate in isolation from their colleagues and asJohnson explains,

In broad terms the preferred culture of teaching is frequently notcompatible with the prevailing context of teachers’ work resulting in asituation where:

successful and committed teachers have left the profession because theirworkplaces were inferior, confining, disheartening environments thatprohibited them from doing the work they set out to do and that mostpeople believe they should do (Johnson, 1990:xiv).

Richard Bates (1986) addresses the notion of the simultaneous presence ofcompeting subcultures which can operate in schools. Fullan (1993) andHargreaves (1994) alert us to co-existing cultures of isolation, balkanization andcontrived collegiality. These writings could provide further insight into thenature of collaboration at Cassinia Secondary College, where a collaborativeculture failed to establish.

Collaborative cultures in schools may generally be a rare occurrence, but atClematis Secondary, Kennedia Primary and Boronia West High Schoolscollaborative cultures operated successfully. At this point, I would like topropose that the reason for success in establishing workplaces which provideprofessional stimulation and satisfaction, is due directly to the collaborativeleadership which operates in those schools, and the development of anaccompanying fully functioning collaborative culture. Moreover, as suggested inthe synthesis of the hypothesized causal links in Chapter 8, these fullyfunctioning collaborative cultures have put a priority on development of theeducational potential of students which is directly linked to:

• positive student behaviour;• a climate conducive to learning;• an innovative curriculum designed to meet student needs.

professional development of teachers which directly linked to:

• organizational fit;• continuous teacher learning;• professional satisfaction/love of teaching.


125

good organizational health which is directly linked to:

• harmonious relationships;• a technical culture;• effective management.

institutionalization of vision which is directly linked to:

• shared beliefs;• leadership density;• commitment, cooperation and support;

all of which, in combination, generate success.

Clark and Meloy (1989:291ff ) list the following ‘musts’ in imagining whatthey term ‘the new school’, that is one based on a democratic rather than abureaucratic structure:

• A new school must be built on the assumption of the consent of thegoverned.

• A new school must be built on shared authority and responsibility, noton delegation of authority and responsibility.

• A staff of a new school must trade assignments and work in multiplegroups to remain in touch with the school as a whole.

• Formal rewards to the staff—salary, tenure, forms of promotion-shouldbe under the control of the staff of a new school as a whole.

• The goals of the new school must be formulated and agreed to throughgroup consensus.

In Clark and Meloy’s terms, student outcomes would be enhanced and schoolsuccess would be achieved. School reform would be realized! But is this a realisticexpectation? Can success be so easily won? The short answer would seem to bea clear ‘no’. Further explanation is necessary. At the outset of this book a briefcommentary on the evolution of leadership theory was traced from itsbeginnings as a task-focused exercise by a single, all-knowing leader, to thecomplex dimensions of cultural, symbolic, educational, human, technicalleadership, broad-ranging, and operating in a transformational sense. Thepresent knowledge base informs us that organizations, and schools in particular,are non-rational workplaces (Barth, 1990; Fullan, 1988; Holly and Southworth,1989) where simple management recipes cannot be directly applied.

Success remains elusive without the additional key ingredient of artistry. Toknow when and how to apply the recipe requires artistry—an artistry whichreads the idiosyncrasies of each leadership context, manipulates, manoeuvres andexploits the four frames according to need, brings checks and balances to theconstantly changing, dynamic educational context, and pursues the initiativeswhich will see the vision realized. Through single frames, or with rational


126

application alone, only partial success can be achieved in accomplishing a fullyfunctioning collaborative culture. Leaders need to know when one dimensionshould take precedence over another; what emphases are needed and for howlong; leaders need to manage the integration of the leadership milieu—howstructure relates to human factors, which relate to politics, which impinge on thesymbolic, and so forth, and the multiple computations and permutations whichare produced. Further, leaders need to do more than just know about all this, theyneed to have the ability and skill to do it, to put it into action, and to do it everyday; day in, day out. As Bolman and Deal (1991:450) state ‘success requiresartistry, skill, and the ability to see organizations as organic forms in whichneeds, roles, power and symbols must be combined to provide direction andshape behaviour.’ Holly and Southworth (1989:64) confirm this position. ‘If thehead is orchestrator of all the other leaders and members then maybe the schoolwill work in greater harmony.’ Starratt captures the character of the artistryrequired for leadership in the urban schools participating in this project:

the leader sees his or her primary task as influencing the way people inthe institution see themselves and see what they have to do. This meansraising questions, challenging assumptions, asking for another opinion,looking beyond tomorrow’s solution to the larger challenge. The leadermust become something of a Socratic gadfly, bothering people enoughuntil they begin to think things through more thoroughly, discuss themtogether, take the time to appreciate the significance of what they aredoing. The new leader must orchestrate a more intense and thorough-going group think (1993:148).

On the basis of the outcomes of the related theory and research presentedthroughout this book, as well as my own professional experience in leadershiproles in schools, discerning application of Bolman and Deal’s model of leadershipis recommended to assist those already in and those aspiring to leadership positions.Bolman and Deal’s structural, human resource, political and symbolic dimensionsprovide a practical framework for interpretation of personal practice and a valuablemeans of identifying areas for professional development. In the first instance theframework would aid leaders in making sense of the world in which they work, acomplex one at the best of times, and a bewildering and stressful one in the presenttumultuous circumstances facing schools. Guidance can be gained from looking atthis seemingly uninterpretable world from structural, human resource, politicaland symbolic viewpoints, bringing a focus where there does not appear to be one.Second, implementation and perceptive use of the Bolman and Deal frames canprovide opportunities at the personal level for leaders to reflect upon and interprettheir own preferred leadership behaviour, refraining to avoid any blind-spots,enlarging both their insight and their repertoire of skills, and thereby increasingtheir professional effectiveness.

It is acknowledged that leadership is a difficult and complex business.Hargreaves (1995:1) offers an interpretation of leadership through the notion of


127

paradox where he sees our present educational environment as one full ofparadoxes ‘symptomatic of a world in rapid transformation—pulling us in manydirections at the same time’. Hargreaves (1995) quotes an insightful CharlesHandy who eloquently asserts:

The acceptance of paradox as a feature of our life is the first step towardsliving with it and managing it… We can and should reduce the starknessof some of the contradictions, minimize the inconsistencies, understandthe puzzles in the paradoxes, but we cannot make them disappear, norsolve them completely, nor escape from them … Paradoxes are like theweather, something to be lived with, not solved, the worst aspectsmitigated, the best enjoyed and used as clues to the way forward.Paradox has to be accepted, coped with and made sense of, in life, inwork, in community and among nations (1994:17–18).

Given the complexities of effective leadership in the global context in whicheducation resides, a framework to bring reason and insight to the leadershipmilieu is pressing. What is being proposed in this book is, that given thiscontext—and because of it, reframing and artistry go some of the way to makesense of the complexities and bring a degree of rationality to it. In combiningartistry with the use of the Bolman and Deal frames, school leaders should go along way to see this happen. At this point I would like to offer some thoughtsfor reflection.

Issues for Reflection

The above is a summarized commentary delineating the positive, and what Iconsider to be the critical features of successful leadership in schools of the1990s. It is an account of effective leadership behaviour in a fast-movingorganizational world of change and uncertainty, and it goes a good deal of theway to rationalize an otherwise paradoxical context. That in itself is a big stepforward, not to be underestimated. Continuing reflection, however, would seemto be mandatory as more and more of the leadership picture is unveiled, and asour world descends on and bombards us with challenges never seen before.

Collaboration and Empowerment

It would seem crucial to address some issues related to empowerment. Thecontention promoted in this book is one of a leadership structure encompassingwidespread empowerment. This has enormous ramifications for the practice ofleadership. Making it work is a complex undertaking, for it means making ashift from the traditional top-down line of hierarchical leadership andmanagement to a more open and diverse structure. Power and authority are


128

shared, and lie in the hands of many, and the school is ‘characterized by anintegrated approach to organizational structure where ideas from multiplesources are combined into meaningful wholes’ (Wallace and Wildy, 1995:15).Patterns of leadership are collaborative and focus on facilitating the sharedpurposes of the school. Group tasks and responsibilities are directed towardinnovation and experimentation, improvement (not maintenance) being aforemost expectation, centred around teams and workgroups which are formedand disbanded according to need. Expertise and interest, rather than seniority orformal status, dictate the membership of each team or workgroup. For many,this shift is a threatening and perplexing one. Most of us work in situationswhere there is a top-down structure with a matching line of accountability.Moving to a democratically organized organization at first sight appears to denythe benefits that line management can bring to governance. To those who havenot witnessed the alternative, disbanding traditional bureaucratic structuresseems a rash and reckless move. The evidence, however, stands overwhelminglyin favour of taking steps towards doing just that, and we ignore the evidence atour peril. If the research consistently points out to us that effective schools areeffective because of their capacity to build a collaborative culture, can we deny thatthis applies to our school? Can we disregard the best practice in schoolselsewhere because it does not appeal to us and may be a little discomforting?When the facts to the contrary are staring us in the face, then answer must bea clear and emphatic ‘No!’, uncomfortable though it may be. So, if we are trueto our ourselves as professionals, we must accommodate a re-thinking of ourposition, and this must be accompanied by a reorganization of structures;structures which are arranged to support attitudes of broad-ranginginclusiveness, bringing dispersed empowerment and responsibility to staff,parents, and students alike. Strongly focused leadership is imperative to makethis happen. The role of the leader becomes more one of a group facilitator,communicator, team-builder, problem-solver, information sharer, ideaspromoter, encourager, energy sustainer, conflict resolver and resource finder,who can gain the participation and commitment of others to the sharedpurposes. This, of course, will not be a single-handed leadership. It will becollective leadership where the combined strengths of the leadership team arepooled to achieve the task at hand.

Collaboration and the Classroom

One area that has not been pursued in this book is the natural extension of theconcept of collaboration to the culture of the classroom, in particular with regardto the relationship between teacher and students. It has crossed my mind that asthe adult culture of the school (school council, principal, teachers andadministration) becomes collaborative, school reform may remain impotent ifthe relationship between adults and children does not, in turn, embrace the sameprinciples and develop collaborative relationships, not just in terms of student


129

participation in decision-making, but in terms of organizing student learning inthe classroom. By this I mean that if an autocratic, teacher-directed learningculture exists in a school, even though there is a collaborative administrativeculture, we are falling short of the mark. The central focus of schoolimprovement is, and must be, student learning. It has been already shown in thisbook that there are quite direct, positive outcomes for students which flow froma collaborative adult culture, and these are significant. However, it would seemto me that a good next step might be to investigate the nature of a collaborativestudent culture in the classroom. Experience has indicated that we can be moreeffective as teachers if we shift our mindset from what is often seen as teacherterritory to what could be legitimately called student territory, namely, thelearning spaces and, indeed, the curriculum of the classroom and schoolenvirons.

I think principles of collaboration should apply at all levels, with specialsignificance for the adolescent and senior levels. If you have taught at these levelsthen you will know that it is quite possible to maintain class control and dispenseportions of knowledge to students; knowledge which they digest and thenregurgitate so that it can be assessed accordingly. Students of this age and stagehave learnt the ground rules of what is expected of them in terms of classroombehaviour and what it is that they need to ‘learn’. They well understand thesanctions that will be imposed if those expectations are breached, so theyconform. On the surface all goes along according to plan, but I would like tosuggest that in many instances we do our students an injustice with thisapproach and deny them any real engagement in learning which is relevant andmeaningful to them as individuals. The introduction of technology, particularlycomputer technology, magnifies this position. It is somewhat dismaying forteachers to find that, with home computers, some students have access to vastdata bases of knowledge, and can learn more at home than they do at school; thatthe parameters of their learning are broadened far beyond the classroom and farbeyond the formal control and constraints inherent in lock-step, linear school-based curriculum directed by teachers.

Another observation I have made is that student sub-cultures have enormousinformal power, dramatically influencing the formal teacher-directed culture. Ifactive student participation and self-directed learning is denied to studentsthrough traditional teaching methodologies, then invariably they will gounderground to compensate for this deficiency; a deficiency which denies themtheir uniqueness as individuals, and their diversity as a group. Goingunderground may take the form of discipline problems either inside or outsidethe classroom, or, it may mean that a sub-culture emerges with a ‘them and us’mentality, students versus staff. It also means that the student norm of ‘schoollearning is not cool’ takes hold and that lip service only is paid to classroomlearning; any chance of ‘learning how to learn’ and becoming lifelong learners,despite the best efforts of teachers, becomes slim. Teachers as a professionalgroup, particularly at the secondary level, have been slow to adopt collaborativeteaching practices, so perhaps not surprisingly, it is not educationalists but


130

technological forces outside the school (such as home computers with, forexample, access to multi-media, electronic mail and Internet), which areshaping the classroom of the future. Teachers may be either exhilarated orthreatened by this. Whichever it is, change will not only come, it has actuallyarrived, and if teachers really are to serve the students of today and the future,serious and committed attention must be given to the way in which their roleas a teacher shifts from one of font and controller of all knowledge’, to one offacilitator, mentor, resourcer, learner and sharer of knowledge. Thatis, promoting collaborative patterns of teaching and learning in theirclassrooms.

Collaboration—Why is it so Rare?

Knowing About it is One Thing, and Doing it Yourself is Another

As a school leader myself, I have thought carefully about the issues wovenbetween the pages of this book, and whilst my own professional experience hasnot been based in inner-city schools, most of what is said rings remarkably trueto my own practice. To a large extent I believe the understandings presented inthis book to be universal, and, as such, are of significance to us all. As a schoolleader, I am deeply committed to trying to practice what I preach in my ownschool setting. I have found the process of reculturing to collaborative patternsof leadership as beguiling and elusive as the research continually indicates. Amajor need is to transfer your thinking from highly legitimate and inspiringtheoretical insights to a practical mindset of knowing what collaboration is, andhow to do it at an operational level. It is as if you have to institutionalize the bodyof leadership theory in your own mind into a personal theory of leadership sothat you can carry it around with you in your head at all times, to make sense ofwhat is happening around you on a day-to-day, hour-by-hour, and sometimesminute-by-minute basis! I have found the Bolman and Deal framework ofinordinate value in this respect. As well, taking time for reflection to clearlyidentify specific collaborative elements within this framework has enabled me tosee the reality of the extent of the job to be done in developing and sustaining acollaborative culture. I have seen collaboration limited to consultation and a fewmore staff appointments at the senior level. Not surprisingly it has been foundto be ineffective, and sadly, rejected. Collaboration itself is not to blame, but ainadequate interpretation of what it entails. I am anxious to see thatcollaboration is not reduced to superficialities, with accompanyingoversimplification and underestimation of the task and inevitable failure. As aresult, this book has been dedicated to unravelling the complexities involved andintends only to give a preliminary glimpse of the operational dimensions of whatconstitutes collaborative leadership. Further insights will unfold as others takeup the issues and proffer their points of view.


131

Change

Reculturing the school means moving from one environment through a processof change to another. Whether you move out of an isolationist, balkanized,innovative, autocratic or other type of organizational culture to a collaborativeone, it is by necessity accompanied by change—change coexists; change cohabits.Like love and (successful) marriage—you can’t have one without the other.There is a coexistence between reculturing and change. In addition, change is notonly fundamental to the establishment of a collaborative culture, but by its verynature, change is integral to the processes of collaboration itself, and to thesustaining of the culture. Collaborative leadership sets out to improve ratherthan maintain what is happening in schools, therefore, management of change isan essential element. So, it is critical that the basic lessons learnt in regard toleading and managing the change process (for example, Fullan, 1993; Miles,1987) are heeded. This is a pre-condition to success. Understandings associatedwith the management of change form a critical connection to the successfulimplementation of a collaborative culture. It is simply not possible to mandate abelief or a commitment whether it be to collaboration or anything else. Changeis developmental and takes place over time and is implemented by individualpeople who will only take it on board at their own pace. (Some will never do so).Given this position, working towards a fully functioning collaborative culture isa slow, sometimes halting process, and depends upon the pre-existing culture ofthe school and the people within it, as to how many years it may take to achieve.Patience and persistence play an important part. Moving into collaborativecultures without due respect being given to the processes of change is destinedto fail.

Vision When the collaborative stage is set, the curtain rises with the instigation of ashared vision. Terms such as ‘vision’ and ‘mission’ are endlessly bandied aboutand sometimes confusing. Whatever you call it, there has to be some sustaineddeep moral purpose guiding the beliefs, values and attitudes and norms ofbehaviour in a school. This must be the driving force for its very existence, andthe central focus of people’s energy and commitment. In my view, once decided,this moral purpose is non-negotiable in the medium to long term. In the innercity schools of this study, the vision was crystal clear—a belief that disadvantagedchildren should have full educational opportunities and that school arrangements canmake this happen. Non-negotiable. Unwavering. Unmoved by postmodernparadoxes, uncertainties or ‘terrifying times’. It is a given. I don’t believe that thisdeeply held belief will be superseded nor become redundant in the near or evendistant future. How to translate it into practice? How to implement it? Wellthat’s an entirely different story. Here I support Hargreaves’s (1995:4)proposition of ‘moving missions’ where ‘teachers and schools should review and


132

renew their purposes over time, along with the social contexts in which thesepurposes are embedded.’ I would make a clear distinction, however, between thehigher order purpose that disadvantaged children should have full educationalopportunities and that school arrangements can make this happen, and that of whatI would call comparatively lower order purpose, such as using school structures toaddress and support children’s learning. Lower order purposes are operationalrather than social or moral and are, therefore, negotiable—open for discussionand appropriate to change at any point of time—and, importantly, to ensureeffective implementation. Both are shared visions, the latter evolving, the formersomething of a universal truth. In short, I embrace Drucker’s (1993:53)sometimes unpopular view that ‘the organization must be single-minded,otherwise its members become confused…only a clear focused and commonmission can hold the organization together and enable it to produce results’. Iwould argue that this is a legitimate position to hold, and that it can, not onlytake an appropriate place in schools of the postmodern age, but actively lead totheir success. However, strictly held beliefs must be accompanied by theflexibility of ‘moving missions’ so that current contexts and conditions canaccommodate their institutionalization into the daily practices of the school.Artistry once again is called for to see that the same tightness which relates tovision should not pervade the general operations of the school. In terms oftranslating the vision into the day-to-day activities of the school, flexibility,creativity, problem-solving and artistry come into play. ‘Moving missions’ areneeded, as Hargreaves has pointed out, to face an educational world in which weconstantly encounter hair-raising challenges, and which we are obliged toconfront in order to achieve success. A leader’s capacity to hold fast to the moral,social or spiritual vision of the school, and at the same time be flexible, creativeand problem-solve at the operational level contributes directly to school success.

I would venture to add that misunderstandings of the relationship betweentight and loose functions of collaborative leadership lead to collaboration’ssometimes poor image in some circles of practice, which insist that it simplydoesn’t work. In fact, it is a naivety of approach that brings the downfall of so-called collaborative efforts. Being collaborative means being singleminded andpassionate—single-minded about the school’s moral purpose and passionate inthe vigilance, determination and resolve which is required to see the visionexecuted. What is needed for leadership here is well described by Martin LutherKing as ‘a tough mind and a tender heart’.

Empowerment The reconceptualization of the concept of leadership to include the notion of‘leadership density’ has far-reaching effects for leaders in schools. It means a re-thinking of attitudes to accommodate a redistribution of power. Structures canbe implemented to support attitudes of broad-ranging inclusiveness, bringingdistributed empowerment and responsibility to staff, parents, and students.


133

Changes to attitudes, however, are not easily achieved as history shows.Nonetheless, it is worth emphasizing that the findings of this book indicate thatwhere the school culture is immersed in a belief in the democratic process, avaluing of the individual, a valuing of diversity, and where interpersonalopenness and caring and respect are the norm, school success, even under themost trying conditions, can be won. It would seem there is inherent wisdom forschool leaders to attend to the pervasive attitudes which permeate their schools.However, the doing of it is difficult, as it really challenges all within theorganization to deliberately take a stand on what they believe leadership is. It isnot sufficient for theorists or researchers to know that empowerment is integralto achieving success in a school, everyone else in the school workplace has tobelieve it too. Effort must be made to ensure that empowerment as a concept issanctioned and becomes embedded in the values base of those making decisionsin the school. There needs to be a shared understanding and acceptance byteachers, students and parents, as well as the formal leadership team, thatdispersed power sharing is, in fact, an effective and rightful thing to do if youwant to gainfully bring about improvement in your school. Like our reluctanceto give up control in the classroom, moving away from the hierarchical way wehave worked for generations is such a radical change that it is disorienting anddiscomforting. Nonetheless, examples of best practice persistently point to thefact that empowerment at the school and classroom level is essential if actualgrowth and development is to take place. We cannot put our heads in the sandand pretend that it does not apply to us. Until there is a state of readiness,however, to take on the responsibility associated with empowerment, fullyfunctioning collaboration must wait in the wings. This responsibility demandsacceptance of, and commitment to, the basic features of collaboration, such astaking a whole school focus, working with others in a democratic way to achievea shared vision, valuing and respecting others’ opinions, frequentcommunication and sharing of information, working towards consensus and soon. Once again, caution is necessary at the outset. It is not a matter of whole-scale handing over of power to anyone who wants it. Accompanyingresponsibilities and accountability run alongside any sharing of power, otherwisedirection will become fragmented, informal power groups will take hold, andchaos reign.

Given the above, it is necessary to reflect on what happens to the hierarchywhen widespread sharing of power is in place. Fullan (1993) suggests a top-down, bottom-up approach where a composite of both centralization anddecentralization forces operate. He proposes that neither centralization ordecentralization work. This applies internally within the school (curriculumdevelopment; strategic planning) and to external forces operating outside theschool (government policy changes and directives). Fullan’s proposition has alot to offer the practice as, apart from expecting to deal with imposition, it canhelp to provide a balanced perspective which leaders, immersed and isolated inthe immediate demands of their frenetic workplaces, might otherwiseoverlook.


134

Fullan (1993) also highlights another point which is of significance to thewhole notion of collaboration, namely that ‘individualism and collectivism musthave equal power’. This is worth commenting on as it links directly with twovalues expressed as fundamental to collaboration in the symbolic frame of thisbook—valuing the uniqueness of each individual, and valuing diversity. Fullanmakes the point that leaders need to work with ‘polar opposites’, that there areno ‘one-sided solutions’. Again it is a matter of balance. Leaders who assumecollaboration will always be a collective activity will see only part of the picture.The creative, original and inner thought that comes from the individual mindshould not be overpowered by the group. Groupthink has the potential to bedangerous and needs to be moderated by individual reasoning. As Fullan pointsout, groups are powerful, but they may be powerfully wrong. It is often said thatleaders should take note of the devil’s advocate on their staff. Listening andtaking account of the non-conforming view brings a perspective to light thatmay be swept away by mainstream thought.

Collaboration and Social and Moral Belief

One last reflection that requires considered attention relates to Nias et al’s(1989:73) statement that collaborative attitudes ‘arise from and embody a set ofsocial and moral beliefs about desirable relationships between individuals andthe community of which they are a part, not from beliefs about epistemologyand pedagogy.’ In other words, Nias and her colleagues have insightfullydiscerned that critical factors to successful collaborative leadership have theirroots in the contributing disciplines of leadership theory—sociology, socialpsychology, political science and social and cultural anthropology, not in theoriesof learning and teaching. This notion would seem to me to be of dramaticsignificance. Maybe we are looking in the wrong place for our exemplar leaders.Maybe before their need to be au fait with sound technical practice, sophisticatedorganizational and political skills, leaders need to be aware of who they arethemselves as people first—what values they hold dear, what motivates them intheir life’s choices and priorities, and how they will respond to given sets ofcircumstances. If, for argument’s sake, valuing of individuality, diversity,participation, community, trust and risk taking are not personally held beliefs byleaders in their schools, it is difficult to imagine how those leaders could establishor sustain a collaborative culture in their school. Norms of interaction,cooperation, mutual support, staff-student-parent cohesion, interpersonalopenness, commitment and enthusiasm are unlikely to develop unless leaders inschools model and actively promote those norms themselves. Equally, attitudesof acceptance, caring and respect, egalitarianism, inclusiveness, self-worth willprobably not become institutionalized if there is not a pervading belief that thesethings are beneficial.

It is somewhat discomforting as a professional to contemplate the view thatepistemology and pedagogy might play a less dominant role in effecting a


135

collaborative culture than leaders’ broader personally held beliefs about what isdesirable as a society. Epistemology and pedagogy are, after all, at the heart of ourwork in schools. They are the bread and butter of our professional world, thefocus of our attention, and one would expect that they would form theparameters of our professional thought. However, the influence and impact of aleader’s moral and social beliefs cannot be overlooked. It gives serious food forthought.

The issues raised in the last part of this chapter reflect some of the reasons whya fully functioning culture is a rare occurrence. We are just beginning to addressthe realities of collaborative leadership in its day-to-day operational form. Thetime ahead offers enormous opportunity for school leaders to take up theattendant issues which present themselves. In doing so a pattern of leadershipwill be established which promotes cooperative sharing, communicating,problem-solving, management of change, continuous curriculum developmentand professional learning. Collegial school-based working groups, with jointpurposes, positively influence the quality of learning offered to the students in theirschools, and, as a result, the educational agenda is significantly advanced forstudents, for teachers and for the school as an organization.

In Conclusion

This book has set out to travel a not so well-trodden path. Much has beenwritten about leadership; much has been written about culture; and much hasbeen written about school effectiveness and success. The contribution of thisbook has been to identify a particular conception of leadership, namelycollaborative leadership, and to establish in detail exactly what it is thatcollaborative leaders do in their schools, seemingly against all the odds, togenerate success for their students, staff and organization. In addition, I haveextended these findings into hypothesized causal links, which when synthesized,offer four distinctive factors as fundamental to a fully functioning collaborativeculture, namely, development of educational potential, professional developmentof teachers, good organizational health and institutionalization of vision.

Collaborative leadership in this book is interpreted through four centralforces of leadership—structural, human resource, political and symbolic. Forcollaborative leadership each force is critical to the whole, and each is expandedby its relationship with the other; the whole being not simply a sum of the parts.Moreover, the elements of the four frames of leadership, denote its collaborativecharacter and style. The findings from the five project schools clearly indicatethat quite specific leader behaviour can lead to success in schools. However, iffull success is to be achieved, artistry is required to know when and how toexercise the various components of leadership so that a collaborative culturewhich brings success can be developed, sustained and maintained in the school.Sarros (1993:52) sums it up:


136

Leadership is a beguiling, perplexing, and challenging phenomenon.Exercised with discretion and consideration, leadership is a powerfultool in building a confident and committed workforce and a strong andresilient organisational culture. Leaders have immense impact on socialand cultural systems, and therefore they’re morally bound to exerciseleadership with discretion and consideration of the general good, notthe individual triumph.

In simpler terms, Robert Fulgham’s credo taken from All I Really Need to KnowI Learned In Kindergarten (1990) is of great appeal:

When you go out into the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands andstick together.

137

References

ARGYRIS, C. (1984) Integrating the Individual and the Organisation, New York: Wiley.AUSTRALIAN PRINCIPALS ASSOCIATION PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (1993) Leaders and their Learning: ProfessionalDevelopment Priorities for Principals, Somerten Park: South Australia, Glenelg Press,(edited by Evans, B.).

BALL, S. (1987) The Micro Politics of the School, London: Methuen.BANKSIA PRIMARY SCHOOL (1990) School Council Annual Report.BARNARD, C.I. (1938) The Functions of the Executive, Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.BARTH, R. (1990) Improving Schools From Within, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.BATES, R.J. (1986) The Management of Culture and Knowledge, Waurn Ponds,

Victoria: Deakin University Press.BATES, R. (1993) ‘Educational Administration as Cultural Practice’, Australian

College of Education: ACT, Australia, Occasional Paper No. 20.BEARE, H., CALDWELL, B.J. and MILLIKAN, R.H. (1989) Creating an Excellent

School, London: Routledge.BENNIS, W. and NANUS, B. (1985) Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge, New York:

Harper and Row.BOLMAN, L.G. and DEAL, T.E. (1991) Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and

Leadership, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.BURNS, J.M. (1978) Leadership, New York: Harper & Row.CALDWELL, B.J. and SPINKS, J.M. (1988) The Self-Managing School, London:

Falmer Press.CALDWELL, B.J. and SPINKS, J.M. (1992) Leading The Self-Managing School,

London: Falmer Press.CHENG, Y.C. (1993) ‘Principal’s leadership as a critical factor for school

performance: Evidence from multi-levels of primary schools’, Paper presented at theInternational Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Norrkoping,Sweden, January.

CLARK, C. and YINGER, R. (1977) ‘Research on teacher thinking’, CurriculumInquiry, 7, 4, pp. 279–304.

CLARK, D.L. and MELOY, J.M. (1989) ‘Renouncing bureaucracy: A democratic

References

138

structure for leadership in schools’, in SERGIOVANNI, T.J. and MOORE, J.H.(Eds) Schooling for Tomorrow: Directing Reforms to Issues that Count, Boston, MA:Allen and Bacon.

COOPER, M. (1989) ‘Whose culture is it, anyway?’, in LIEBERMAN, A. (Ed)Building a Professional Culture In Schools, New York: Teachers College Press.

CROWTHER, F. and GIBSON, I. (1990) ‘Research as problem discovery: discoveringself-as-author through naturalistic inquiry’, in MACPHERSON, R.J.S. andWEEKS, J. (Eds) Pathways To Knowledge In Educational Administration:Methodologies and Research in Progress in Australia, Melbourne: Australian Councilfor Educational Administration.

DEAL, T.E. (1990) ‘Healing the schools: Restoring the heart’, in LIEBERMAN, A.(Ed) Schools as Collaborative Cultures: Creating the Future Now, London: FalmerPress.

DEAL, T. and KENNEDY, A. (1982) Corporate Cultures, New York: Addison-Wesley.DEAL, T.E. and PETERSON, K.D. (1990) The Principal’s Role in Shaping School

Culture, Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.DEBNEY PARK HIGH SCHOOL (1986) Human Rights, Victoria: PEP Schools

Resource Program. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OF VICTORIA (1985)Ministerial Papers. Victoria: Ministry of Education.

DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (1993) Leaders and their Learning: ProfessionalDevelopment Priorities for Principals, Somerten Park: South Australia, GlenelgPress.

DRUCKER, P. (1993) Post—Capitalist Society, New York: Teachers’ College Press.FIEDLER, F.E. (1967) A Theory Of Leadership Effectiveness, New York: McGraw-Hill.FIRESTONE, W.A. and WILSON, B.L. (1985) ‘Using bureaucratic linkages to

improve instruction: The principal’s contribution’, Educational AdministrationQuarterly, 21, 2, pp. 7–13.

FOLLETT, M.P. (1941) Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary ParkerFollett, METCALF, H. and URLWICK, L. (Eds) New York: Harper and Row.

FULGHUM, R. (1990) All I Really Need to Know I Learned In Kindergarten, NewYork: Villard Books.

FULLAN, M.G. (1988) What’s Worth Fighting For In The Principalship?: Strategies ForTaking Charge In The Elementary School Principalship, Toronto: Ontario PublicSchool Teachers’ Federation.

FULLAN, M.G. (1991) The New Meaning of Educational Change, London: Cassell.FULLAN, M.G. (1993) Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform,

London: Falmer Press.FULLAN, M.G. and HARGREAVES, A. (Eds) (1991a) Understanding Teacher

Development, London: Cassell.FULLAN, M.G. and HARGREAVES, A. (1991b) What’s Worth Fighting For?: Working

Together For Your School, Toronto: Ontario Public School Teachers’ Federation.

References

139

FULLAN, M.G. and HARGREAVES, A. (Eds) (1992) Teacher Development andEducational Change, London: Falmer Press.

FULLAN, M.G., BENNETT, B. and ROLHEISER-BENNETT, C. (1990) ‘Linkingclassroom and school improvement’, Educational Leadership, 47, 8, pp. 13–19.

GIDDENS, A. (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure andContradictions in Social Analysis, London: Macmillan.

GOFFMAN, E. (1974) Frame Analysis, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.GOODLAD, J.I. (1984) A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future, New York:

McGraw-Hill.GREENFIELD, T.B. (1986) ‘Leaders and schools: Willfullness and non-natural order

in organizations’, in SERGIOVANNI, T.J. and CORBALLY, J.E. (Eds) Leadershipand Organizational Cultures: New Perspectives on Administrative Theory and Practice,Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

GRONN, P. (1995) ‘Greatness re-visited: The current obsession with transformationalleadership’, in Leading and Managing, Journal of the Australian Council forEducational Administration, 1, 1, Autumn.

HANDY, C. (1985) Understanding Organisations, London: Penguin.HANDY, C. (1994) The Empty Raincoat, London: Hutchison.HARGREAVES, A. (1994) Changing Teachers, Changing Times: Teacher’s Work and

Culture in the Postmodern Age, Cassell: London.HARGREAVES, A. (1995) Changing Teachers, Changing Times: Strategies for

Leadership in an Age of Paradox, ACEA Seminar Notes, Melbourne: June.HARGREAVES, A. and DAWE, R. (1990) ‘Paths of professional development:

Contrived collegiality collaborative culture, and the case of peer coaching’, Teachingand Teacher Education, 6, 3, pp. 20–34.

HERSEY, P. and BLANCHARD, K. (1982) Management of Organizational Behaviour:Utilizing Human Resources, (4th Edition) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

HOCKING, H. and CALDWELL, B.J. (1990) ‘Conceptual frameworks’, inMACPHERSON, R.J.S. and WEEKS, J. (Eds) Pathways To Knowledge InEducational Administration: Methodologies and Research in Progress in Australia,Armidale, New South Wales: ACEA.

HOLLY, P. and SOUTHWORTH, G. (1989) The Developing School, London: FalmerPress.

HOUSE, E. and LAPAN, S. (1978) Survival in the Classroom, Boston, MA: Allen andUnwin.

HOYLE, E. (1986) The Politics of School Management, Milton Keynes: OpenUniversity.

HUBERMAN, M. (1983) ‘Recipes for busy kitchens’, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion,Utilization, 4, pp. 478–510.

HUBERMAN, M. (1991) ‘Teacher development and instructional mastery’, inHARGREAVES, A. and FULLAN, M., Understanding Teacher Development,London: Cassell.

References

140

JOHNSON, S.M. (1990) Teachers’ Work: Achieving Success in Our Schools, New York:Basic Books.

KANTER, R.M. (1977) Men and Women of the Corporation, New York: Basic Books.KOTTER, J.P. (1990) A Force For Change: How Leadership Differs from Management,

London and New York: The Free Press.LEITHWOOD, K. (1992) ‘The principal’s role in teacher development’, in FULLAN,

M, and HARGREAVES, A. (Eds) (1992) Teacher Development and EducationalChange, London: Falmer Press.

LEITHWOOD, K. (1994) ‘Leadership for school restructuring’, Paper presented atthe International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Melbourne,Australia, January.

LEITHWOOD, K. and JANTZI, D. (1990) ‘Transformational leadership: Howprincipals can reform school culture’, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association Annual Meeting.

LEITHWOOD, K. BEGLEY, P.T. and COUSINS, J.B. (1992) Developing ExpertLeadership for Future Schools, London: Falmer Press.

LITTLE, J. (1982) ‘Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditionsof school success’, American Educational Research Journal, 19, pp. 235–40.

LITTLE, J. (1986) ‘Seductive images and organizational realities in professionaldevelopment’, Teachers College Record, 86, 1, pp. 84–102.

LITTLE, J. (1990) ‘The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’professional relations’, Teachers College Record, 91, 4, pp. 509–36.

LORTIE, D. (1975) School Teacher: A Sociological Book, Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press.

LOUIS, K. and MILES, M.B. (1991) ‘Managing reform: Lessons from urban highschools’, School Effectiveness and Improvement, 2, 1, pp. 75–96.

MCGEGOR, D. (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise, New York: McGraw-Hill.MARSHALL, G. and ROSSMAN, G. (1989) Designing Qualitative Research,

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.MIDDLETON, M. (1982) Marking Time, Melbourne: Methuen Australia.MILES, M.B. (1987) ‘Practical guidelines for school administrators: How to get there’,

Paper read at a symposium of Effective Schools Programs and the Urban HighSchool. Washington, DC: Annual Meeting of the American Research Association.

MILES, M.B. and HUBERMAN, A.M. (1984) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Source-book of New Methods, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (1985) ‘Ministerial Paper Number 4:4.5’, PublishingServices, Statewide School Support and Production Centre, Victoria, Australia.

MINTZBERG, H. (1973) The Nature of Managerial Work, New York: Harper andRow.

MORRIS, L.L., FITZ-GIBBON, C. and FREEMAN, M. (1987) How toCommunicate Evaluation Findings, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

References

141

NIAS, J., SOUTHWORTH, G. and YEOMANS, R. (1989) Staff Relationships in thePrimary Schools, London: Cassell.

OWENS, R.G. (1991) Organizational Behaviour in Education, (4th Edition)Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

PETERS, T.J. and WATERMAN, R.H., JR (1982) In Search of Excellence: Lessons fromAmerica’s Best-Run Companies, New York: Harper and Row.

PURKEY, S.C. and SMITH, M.S. (1985) ‘School reform: The district policyimplications of the effective schools literature’, The Elementary School Journal, 85, 3,pp. 353–89.

ROBBINS, S.P. (1989) Organizational Behaviour, London: Prentice-Hall.ROSENHOLTZ, S. (1989) Teachers’ Workplace: The Social Organization Of Schools,

New York: Longman.SANDERSON HIGH SCHOOL (1988) Sanderson High School: A Case Book In

Effective Schooling, Darwin: Northern Territory Department of Education.SARROS, J.C. (1993) ‘Essential characteristics of successful leaders’, The Educational

Administrator, 38, pp. 36–52.SCHEIN, E.H. (1985) Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View, San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.SCHOOLS COUNCIL (1990) ‘Australia’s teachers: An agenda for the next decade’,

A Paper prepared by the Schools Council for the National Board of Employment,Education and Training, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

SERGIOVANNI, T.J. (1984) ‘Leadership and Excellence in Schooling’, EducationalLeadership, 41, 5, pp. 4–13.

SERGIOVANNI, T.J. (1987) ‘The theoretical basis for cultural leadership’, inSHEIVE, L.T. and SCHOENHEIT, M.B. (Eds) 1987 Yearbook of the Association forSupervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA: ASCA.

SERGIOVANNI, T.J. (1990) Value-Added Leadership: How to Get Extraordinary Resultsin Schools, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

SERGIOVANNI, T.J. and STARRATT, R.J. (1988) Supervision: Human Perspectives,(4th Edition) New York: McGraw-Hill.

STAKE, R.E. (1967) ‘The countenance of educational evaluation’, in SHADISH,W.R., JR, COOK, T.D. and LEVITON, L.C. (1991) Foundations of ProgramEvaluation Theories of Practice, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

STARRATT, R.J. (1991) ‘Building an ethical school: A theory for practice ineducational leadership’, Educational Administration Quarterly, 27, 2, pp. 185–202.

STARRATT, R.J. (1993) The Drama of Leadership, London: Falmer Press.STOGDILL, R.M. (1974) Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of the Literature, New

York: Free Press.TAYLOR, F. (1911) The Principles of Scientific Management, New York: Harper and

Row.WALLACE, J. and WILDY, H. (1995) ‘The changing world of leadership: Working in

References

142

a professional organisation today’, in The Practising Administrator: Journal of theAustralian Council for Educational Administration, 17, 1.

WATKINS, P. (1985) Agency and Structure: Dialectics in the Administration ofEducation, Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.

WATKINS, P. (1989) ‘Leadership, power and symbols in educational administration’,in SMYTH, J. (Ed) (1989) Critical Perspectives on Educational Leadership, London:Falmer Press.

WIDEEN, M.F. (1992) ‘School-based teacher development’, in FULLAN, M.G. andHARGREAVES, A. (Eds) (1992) Teacher Development and Educational Change,London: Falmer Press.

YUKL, G. (1989) ‘Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research’, Journal ofManagement, 15, 2, pp. 251–89.

143

Appendixes

Appendix 1: School Profile

Profile of your School

The Task

In this document we ask you to provide further information about the schooland its accomplishments. We are conscious of the special demands of theprincipal and staff at this time of the year and have organized the task so thatcompilation will be relatively straightforward and can be shared among severalpeople.

How was this Profile Prepared

1. Please describe the process by which the profile was prepared.

Appendixes

144

The School: Its History and Community

2. What is the current enrolment in the school?

3. Please describe recent and projected enrolment trends.

4. Please describe the school community. You may wish to refer to socio-economicstatus, background and educational interests of parents, local business and industry,historical highlights.

5. Please list past events and achievements which have given the school its specialnature (this does not call for historical research; we seek reference to those things aboutthe past which are generally known in the school community).

6. Briefly describe the major changes which have taken place in the school overabout the last five years (included here are educational changes but also changes tostaff, buildings, characteristics of the student population and characteristics of theschool community).

7. What noteworthy changes are anticipated in the next three years (as for Question6, include here reference to educational changes as well as changes to staff, buildings,characteristics of the student population and characteristics of the school community).

Appendixes

145

The Accomplishment(s) for which the School was Nominated

8. Please describe the accomplishment(s) in as much detail as space allows.

9. Please give an explanation of how these accomplishments were brought about.Make reference as appropriate to particular people, processes, events or other factorswhich you believe had an impact.

10. Describe in general terms how leadership is exercised in the school. Distinguishbetween the role of the principal and that of other school leaders in the school.Consider informal as well as formal leaders.

11. List and briefly describe the roles of the major decision making groups in theschool. Include reference as appropriate to groups which include students, parents andother members of the school community.

Appendixes

146

Appendix 2: Interview Questions

Structural

How is the school organized to allow shared decision-making and sharedresponsibility?

What is it that you and other leaders actively do to promote these arrangements?

How does this contribute to your school’s success—for instance, in terms ofmore effective planning and coordination, or, clearer descriptions of roles?

Other?

Human Resource

In what ways do staff and others support and cooperate with each other—intheir teaching practice, or, personally?

What do you and other leaders do to foster such cooperation and support-formally and informally?

How has this influenced school successes, say, in professional development, or,curriculum innovation?

Other?

Political

In what ways is power shared in the school?

What are the preferred processes you and other leaders would engage to ensureconsensus is reached—with regard to curriculum decisions or conflictresolution? What processes would you not engage in?

How has this fostered improvement in school outcomes—for example in staffcohesion, or, student and teacher morale?

Other?

Symbolic

What shared values run through the daily activities of school life?

Appendixes

147

What do you and other leaders do to preserve and promote those values—say, intraditions and symbols of the school or informally?

How has this brought about the successes achieved in the school—say, in termsof developing a sense of community or having the collective confidence tomanage the challenges faced by urban schools?

149

accessibility, 111administration, 41, 43, 51, 108

culture, 86, 129human resource frame, 63political frame, 75–6

adult culture, 128affiliations, 77alienation, 16, 59analysis of data, 30–5, 39Annual General Meetings (AGM), 47–8,

91anthropology, 15, 134artistry, 125, 132assemblies, 91attitudes, 64, 78, 85, 86, 88

beliefs, 134change, 131, 133symbolic frame, 90, 97, 114–15

Australian Principals AssociationsProfessional Development Council,21–2

authoritarianism, 44autocracy, 129 balkanization, 124, 131bargaining, 72, 76Barth, R., 45, 49, 64, 65Bates, R., 86, 124Beare, H., 7, 53Begley, P.T., 27, 70behaviour, 85, 86, 92

norms, 101, 114, 116–17political, 111respect, 93students, 102, 110, 119vision, 131

behaviourism, 8beliefs, 85, 86, 87, 88, 123

change, 131collaboration, 134–5curriculum, 100respect, 93symbolic frame, 90, 92, 97value-systems, 101vision, 131

Bennis, W., 7, 9–10bias, 36Bolman, L.G., 13–18, 21, 23, 25

conceptual issues, 38human resource frame, 60, 67hypothetical causal links, 99political frame, 71, 72, 81practice, 130reflections, 121–2success, 126, 127symbolic frame, 85

Burns, J.M., 7, 8, 12 cabals, 39Caldwell, B.J., 7, 15, 36, 53caring, 94, 95, 114, 116causal connections, 99–120cellular organization, 19–20centralization, 133ceremonies see ritualschange, 131, 133change theory, 8Cheng, Y.C., 21choice, 52, 95, 100Clark, D.L., 59, 125class size, 51classroom collaboration, 128–30

Index

Index

150

cliques, 77coalitions, 77, 80, 123collaboration

beliefs, 134–5classrooms, 128–30empowerment, 127–8rarity, 130–5

collaborative culture, 86, 92, 125, 128collaborative leadership, 19–27, 118–20

conceptual framework, 23–5definitions, 13–18, 25–7political frame, 79–80structural frame, 103success, 50–3symbolic frame, 92–5

collectivism, 134collegiality, 22, 61, 64, 90, 124commitment, 89, 92, 131

democracy, 105leadership density, 102social justice, 93students, 95

communal institutionalizing of visionmodel, 10

community see also whole schoolcommunity, 91

computer technology, 129–30conceptual issues, 38–40concerts, 48conflict diffusion, 90conformity, 134consensus, 72, 73–4, 76, 79, 80consultation, 80contemporary school leadership,

10–13contingency views, 8contingent reward, 11controls, 41Cooper, M., 62cooperation, 59, 60, 62–3, 65, 78

democracy, 92, 103, 108, 125teachers, 100, 109

courage, 90Cousins, J.B., 27cultural anthropology, 15, 134culture, 12, 16, 17–18

adult, 128collaborative, 19, 55–6conceptual issues, 39

definition, 121diversity, 96, 115food, 91forces, 9human resource frame, 58power-sharing, 74social justice, 93structural frame, 48student-based, 106teachers, 65–6technical, 60–1, 108, 119, 125

curriculumbeliefs, 100change, 79choice, 95, 100classrooms, 129individuality, 102innovation, 59, 93, 106–7, 124planning, 66policy, 46, 81students, 101success, 94symbolic frame, 91

data collection, 30–5, 53–5Deal, T.E., 13–18, 21, 23, 25, 77, 91

conceptual issues, 38human resource frame, 60, 67hypothetical causal links, 99political frame, 71, 72, 81practice, 130reflections, 121–2success, 126, 127symbolic frame, 85

decentralization, 133decision-making, 16, 25, 41

democracy, 29, 55, 79–80, 100, 105fair, 111individual, 12–13negotiation, 82parents, 46–7participation, 50, 52, 64, 90, 123,

129political frame, 75shared, 42staff meetings, 43teachers, 102–3voting, 76

decoding, 18

Index

151

democracy, 42, 43–4, 45decision-making, 55, 79–80, 100density of leadership, 122empowerment, 133meeting procedures, 103–4new school, 125openness, 104–5political frame, 73representation, 110social justice, 50structural frame, 46symbolic frame, 89teachers, 111–13

democracy, decision-making, 29density of leadership, 12, 42–3, 49, 102,

125democracy, 122empowerment, 132

development of findings, 53–5, 67–8,81–3, 95

devil’s advocate, 134directives, 42disadvantaged children, 87–8, 92, 96,

113, 115–16, 131–2discipline, 129display of data, 31, 34–5disruption, 111, 123diversity, 52, 79, 93–4, 114–15, 134documentation, 91Drucker, P., 132 educational force, 9educational potential, 118–19egalitarianism, 91, 93, 117electronic mail, 130empowerment, 8–10, 132–4

collaboration, 26, 127–8culture, 22human resource frame, 58leadership density, 12political frame, 79school selection, 29structural frame, 44students, 100, 102symbolic frame, 95teachers, 21, 49veto, 74

epistemology, 134–5ethnic teacher aides, 47–8

ethnicity, 87–8, 91ethos, 17–18, 86 fairness culture, 78fearlessness, 90feelings, 58festivals, 92findings, 53–6, 67–70, 81–3, 95–7Firestone, W.A., 124food, 47–8, 91forecasting, 99formal meeting procedures, 45frame theory, 13, 14–15, 38free market approach, 52friendships, 64Fulgham, R., 136Fullan, M.G., 9, 21, 22–3, 38

empowerment, 133–4human resource frame, 60, 62, 63, 64isolation, 124symbolic frame, 90

gender, 8Giddens, A., 78Goffman, E., 14good practice, 39, 130–5Goodlad, J.I., 20government reform, 41Greenfield, T.B., 7Gronn, P., 11–12

Handy, C, 127Hargreaves, A., 21, 22–3, 38

human resource frame, 62, 63isolation, 124success, 126–7symbolic frame, 90vision, 131–2

Hocking, H., 36Holly, P., 126Huberman, A.M., 31, 36–8, 53, 67, 81human force, 9human resource frame, 13–17, 19, 49,

58–70collaborative leadership, 24–6conceptual issues, 38cooperation, 92data collection, 32hypothesized causal links, 99, 106–9

Index

152

individuality, 90reflections, 121–2success, 126

hypothesized causal links, 99–101, 124human resource frame, 106–9political frame, 110–13structural frame, 102–6

hypothesized causal links, symbolicframe, 113–17

ideology, 91immaturity, 93improvement, 22, 29–30, 72, 128individual leadership, 11–12individualism, 134individuality, 88–90, 99, 101–2, 115informal networks, 76–7information

availability, 78, 82flow, 104–5, 111–12

Inner Melbourne Leadership Project, 23Inner Melbourne Support Centre, 28, 29,

78innovation

curriculum, 59, 93, 102, 106–7, 124improvement, 79, 128

interactive model, 31, 53interdependence, 59interest groups, 77International Congress for School

Effectiveness and Improvement,11

Internet, 130interviews, 33–4, 37, 39–40

development of findings, 53–5human resource frame, 58–9, 67–8political frame, 71–2, 81–3structural frame, 42symbolic frame, 95–7

isolation, 20, 124, 131issues, 121–36

Jantzi, D, 22, 38, 61job opportunities, 88job satisfaction, 112Johnson, S.M., 21, 48, 92–3, 121–2, 124justice, 50, 89, 93 Kanter, R.M., 73

Kennedy, A, 18, 91King, M.L., 132Kotter, J.P., 59, 60 language, 33, 39, 91language styles, 47leadership see also collaborative

leadershipcollaborative, 19–27definitions, 7, 10–11human resource frame, 59–65political frame, 72–8structural frame, 42–50symbolic frame, 87–92theory, 7–18

learning-enriched schools, 20Leithwood, K., 11–12, 17, 22, 27, 38, 61,

70listening, 25, 26, 42, 73–4Little, J.W., 20, 45, 60, 61, 124lobbying, 111Lortie, D., 19–20Louis, K., 9lunchtimes, 91 mainstream thinking, 134maintenance, 128management, 108meanings see shared meaningsmeeting procedures, 103–4Meloy, J.M., 59, 125methodology, research, 28–40Miles, M.B., 9, 22, 31, 36–8, 53, 67, 81Millikan, R.H., 7, 53Ministry of Education, 42, 46, 62, 72,

78minute-taking, 45, 55mixed ability groups, 61, 68moral beliefs, 134–5morale, 65, 72, 94, 100

human resource frame, 58, 106,107–8

political frame, 73teachers, 80, 103–4, 109, 115

Morris, L.L, 35motivation, 62multi-media, 130multicultural issues

festivals, 92

Index

153

teacher aides, 29, 48, 78, 82teaching, 91

Nanus, B., 7, 9–10naturalistic methodology, 35needs, 22, 50, 58, 88, 89

political frame, 79students, 101, 102symbolic frame, 94–5

negotiation, 72, 74, 76, 80, 82networking, 76–8, 100, 123new school structure, 125newsletters, 81–2Nias, J, 20, 38–9, 63, 85–6, 88, 134norms, 85–7, 92, 134

behaviour, 101, 114, 116–17symbolic frame, 97vision, 131

one-sided solutions, 134open-door policy, 55, 82organizations

charts, 15healthy, 119–20social psychology, 15success, 99, 102–6, 106–9, 110–13,

113–17vision, 132

paradox, 126–7, 131parents, 46–7, 82, 92participation, 26, 43, 46, 90, 123, 129

community, 91decision-making, 50, 52, 64, 79–80,

82political frame, 73power sharing, 110responsibility, 55

pastoral care groups, 66pedagogy, 134–5personal bias, 36personal development, 29–30perspectives see frame theoryPeters, T.J., 66Peterson, K.D., 17–18, 77philosophy, 106, 123planning, 15–16, 41, 42, 55

curriculum, 66

human resource frame, 63team, 108

policy statements, 37–8policy-making, 15–16political frame, 14, 15, 17, 19, 71–84

collaborative leadership, 24, 25, 26conceptual issues, 38conflict diffusion, 90data collection, 32hypothesized causal links, 99, 110–13reflections, 121–2success, 126

political networks, 100–1political science, 15, 134postmodernism, 131power relations, 15, 17, 44, 72, 100

collaboration, 127–8political frame, 72–4, 78subcultures, 129

power sharing, 110prejudices

see also bias, 58principal-teacher relationships, 21, 65problem-solving, 60–1professional development, 119psychology, 134Purkey, S.C., 53 qualitative approach, 30–1, 35–6, 37–8questionnaires, 32–3, 37–8 rational bonds, 121reciprocity, 61reculturing, 131reduction of data, 31, 34, 38reflections, 121–36reform, 41refraining, 15relationships, 58, 100, 115, 119, 128–30reliability of data, 35–7representation, 110research, 7–18, 28–40respect, 26, 43, 93

change, 131diversity, 122ethnicity, 91political frame, 73–4power sharing, 110

Index

154

symbolic frame, 114, 116teachers, 51, 107, 109

responsibility, 42, 43, 45individuality, 99parents, 46participation, 55shared, 67, 79structural frame, 49teachers, 104

rituals, 18, 27, 85importance, 87, 92symbolic frame, 91, 97

Robbins, S.P., 17, 78role description, 42Rosenholtz, S., 20, 38, 60round table arrangements, 47 Sarros, J.C., 134–5Schein, E.H., 121–2school councils, 41–2, 46, 47, 48, 91

parents, 82structural frame, 52veto, 74

school-based management, 53schools

collaboration background, 19–23culture, 85–6leadership, 10–13new school, 125profile, 31, 33, 38, 50–1, 79, 95research methodology, 28–30success, 50–3

Schools Council, Australia, 90self-development, 51self-expression, 100self-interest, 45–6, 61self-management, 41self-worth, 101Sergiovanni, T.J., 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 27, 58

leadership density, 43political frame, 73reflections, 121–2structural frame, 41symbolic frame, 17

shared decision-making, 42shared meanings, 85, 86, 87shared responsibility, 67, 79Smith, M.S., 53social anthropology, 15, 134

social beliefs, 134–5social events, 63social justice, 50, 89, 93social psychology, 134sociology, 15, 134Southworth, G., 20, 38, 39, 126space-use, 91special needs, 51Spinks, J.M., 15staff see teachersstaff meetings, 43, 51, 76, 91, 93, 102Starratt, R.J., 10, 18, 27, 90, 126Stogdill, R.M., 7streaming, 101structural frame, 13, 15–16, 19, 41–57

collaborative leadership, 23–4, 25,26

conceptual issues, 38data collection, 32decision-making, 90hypothesized causal links, 99, 102–6meetings, 61–2power relations, 77reflections, 121–2success, 126

student representative councils, 91student-centred culture, 61–2students

commitment, 95culture, 128–30educational potential, 118–19needs, 101respect, 93–4success, 99–100, 102–9, 110–17,

124Students at Risk project, 78study limitations, 37subcultures, 124, 129subject choice, 52subjectivity, 36success, 50–3, 56, 62, 133

collaboration, 122–7daily practice, 99human resource frame, 59, 65–7,

106–9political frame, 79–80, 110–13structural frame, 102–6symbolic frame, 86, 92–5, 113–17

support mechanisms, 59, 62–3, 65, 92, 125

Index

155

dismantling, 90human resource frame, 67–8social welfare, 113symbolic frame, 88, 116teachers, 107–8

support mechanisms, students, 100symbolic force, 9–10symbolic frame, 14, 15, 17–18, 19,

85–98collaborative leadership, 24–5, 26–7conceptual issues, 38–9data collection, 32–3empowerment, 134hypothesized causal links, 99, 113–17reflections, 121–2success, 126

Taylor, F., 8teachers

collaboration, 19–21cooperation, 100culture, 65–6, 128–30empowerment, 49enthusiasm, 106human resource frame, 60–1isolation, 124morale, 80, 94professional development, 119respect, 51, 93social events, 63success, 62, 99, 100, 102–9, 110–17,

124–5symbolic frame, 88, 92

team effort, 80team planning, 108team work, 128technical culture, 60–1, 108, 119, 125technical force, 9, 16, 41technology, 129–30tertiary education, 88theologies, 15

theory, 7–18, 125, 130, 134tracking, 101traditional culture, 19, 75traditional teaching methods, 51transactional leadership, 8, 11–13transformational leadership, 11–13, 23transforming leadership, 8 urban schools, 19, 28–30

collaborative culture, 55–6conceptual issues, 39human resource frame, 58, 60, 69parents, 47–8political frame, 83

validity of data, 35–7value systems, 18, 26–7, 32, 86–7, 123,

134beliefs, 101respect, 93symbolic frame, 85, 90, 97, 114–15vision, 131

veto, 44, 74vision, 9–10, 25, 26, 42, 131–2

human resource frame, 60institutionalization, 120, 125political frame, 80structural frame, 104, 105symbolic frame, 116–17

visits, 37voting, 73–4, 76 Waterman, R.H., 66Watkins, P., 74, 75welfare, 88, 89, 113, 114whole school community, 88, 94Wilson, B.L., 124workgroups, 13, 128 Yeomans, R., 20, 38, 39Yukl, G., 10

transforming schools through collaborative leadership (student outcomes and the reform of education

Documents